MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Heather McPherson

Follow by RSS

McPherson presses for workers’ rights — sponsoring Bill C-259 to stop employers from controlling unions, demanding a national steel strategy with enforceable conditions on public money for industry, and fighting Bill C-39’s powers to end legal strikes — and for enforcing the Canada Health Act against Alberta’s Bill 11 and protecting Alberta’s watersheds from coal mining. She argues by holding the government to its own words, asking why it would say “we have received assurances” while the law is broken.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
87 / 100 over 47 statements
Signal 76 / 100
Relevance 78 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 47 of 52 statements graded so far.

Statements 52

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Alberta's new health bill breaks the Canada Health Act. The federal government should not just trust Alberta's premier when she says it is fine. Her goal is to take apart public health care, and the Liberals are looking the other way.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 84 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “her goal, her priorities and her plan is to dismantle health care”.

    See full analysis
  • 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 you were in the chair and the member was across the hall when we had this exact same exchange yesterday. Bill 11 breaks the Canada Health Act; the Canadian Health Coalition has a legal opinion that makes it very clear that it does. Therefore, I do not understand why the Liberal government continues to say, “We have received assurances from the UCP government.” That assurance is not worth anything. Danielle Smith’s mandate, her goal, her priorities and her plan is to dismantle health care, so it is a problem to have one of her ministers say, “Don’t worry, there’s nothing to see here”, and to have the Liberals, either through naivety or a desire to look the other way and not be bothered, say, “Oh, it’s okay, they’ve told us it’s good, so we’re not looking any closer.” It is a problem for my province and for health care across this country.

“I do not support this budget bill. It protects big corporations instead of helping Canadians who cannot afford food, rent, and medicine. The government should tax giant grocery and oil companies instead of giving them public money. It fails to fix our collapsing health care system, expand dental care, fund free medicine, or stop private health care. It also cuts 2.7 billion dollars from international aid.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I wanted to start today by giving my best regards to Albertans who are standing up for the “Fight Back Now” day of action that is taking place across Alberta today. It is being organized by the Alberta Federation of Labour. I really wish I could be there today. I want to congratulate the workers, union members, indigenous leaders, community organizers, students, health care advocates and every ordinary Albertan who is coming together to raise their voices for fairness, for dignity and for a better future for our province and for our country. At a time when separatist rhetoric is being fuelled by Danielle Smith and the UCP government, at a time when workers’ rights, public health care, public education, indigenous rights and human rights of many Albertans are under attack, these Albertans are standing up for the values that built my province: solidarity, public service, good jobs and looking out for one another. Their message is clear. Albertans are tired of governments that prioritize corporate profits and political division, while families struggle to afford housing, access health care and make ends meet. Today’s day of action is a reminder that democracy is not passive. Change happens because people organize, speak out and demand better. Albertans, today, are demanding better. I want to start by talking a little bit about Alberta. The frustrations that Albertans feel are real. When we talk about the budget implementation act and the spring economic statement, we have to acknowledge the moment we find ourselves in. People in Alberta feel economically insecure and politically alienated. We are seeing problems on both sides of this House in response to that. We know that the Conservatives are fuelling division and rage, exploiting that anger in Alberta with the UCP government. We know that the Liberals think dangling a pipeline in front of Albertans will in fact fix the separation issue. That is not the way this works. Appeasing separatists with symbolic concessions is like appeasing Donald Trump. It never works because the goalposts change. It never works because they will move the goalposts further down the line. Canadians, including Albertans, need economic security. They need strong public services and national unity that is based on fairness. National unity cannot be bought with a pipeline announcement, while people cannot afford rent, cannot find a doctor and feel abandoned by the governments that represent them. This economic statement did not help any of that. Budgets reveal priorities and values. Canadians are struggling with affordability, access to health care and a health care system in Alberta that is at the point of collapse. We have housing insecurity and global instability. This moment we find ourselves in right now calls for courage and it calls for transformational leadership. Instead what we saw from this spring economic statement was the protection of corporate interests, while asking ordinary Canadians to settle for less. At a time when Canadians needed bold action, the Liberal government delivered corporate subsidies and broken promises. The reality is Canadians cannot afford their groceries, rent, insurance, utilities or medication. The cost of all of it is continuing to rise. People are working full-time and they cannot get ahead. Young people feel locked out of home ownership and stability entirely. Seniors are skipping meals and prescription medication. Disability supports remain wildly inadequate. While I will congratulate the government on tinkering on the edges and making the application process somewhat easier, the amount that we are giving to some of the most vulnerable people in our community does not meet the needs that those members of our community face. Temporary rebates and boutique programs do not solve structural affordability problems. The government refuses to confront corporate profiteering. There is no serious excess profit tax on grocery giants or oil companies, and the government continues to provide corporate subsidies while families in this country are struggling. There is a progressive alternative. We could tax excess profits. We could build market housing at the scale needed to deal with the national housing crisis we are facing in this country right now. We could strengthen public services instead of privatizing them. We could invest directly in people, not in shareholders. We do not need more corporate press releases disguised as affordability policy. Canadians need governments that are willing to take on concentrated wealth and corporate greed. Now I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the health care crisis we are facing. I know Alberta is ground zero for this, but I also know it is happening across the country. The institution of public health care, universally delivered, publicly delivered health care, is under attack in this country. Canadians cannot access family doctors. Emergency waiting rooms are closing. The wait times are in the hours, if not days. Hallway medicine has become normalized. Health care workers across the country are being left burnt-out and discouraged, and they are leaving the profession. In Alberta, Danielle Smith is dismantling public health care, and the federal government is refusing to stand up for the law in this country, the Canada Health Act. In the budget implementation act, the government could have stood up. It could have stood up and invested in mental health care. It could have recommitted the dollars and support for a pharmacare program that it has been promising for decades. The vast majority of Canadians still do not have access to pharmacare, including in my province of Alberta. That is not the principle of the Canada Health Act. The principle of universality says every Canadian, regardless of where they live, should access the same level of care. There is the dental care program that the New Democrats fought so hard for and has helped so many Canadians across this country. The government is failing to invest in it. The government is failing to support it. Canadians deserve a government looking after them, and they deserve a government that believes in the Canada Health Act and is willing to fight to enforce it. The hypocrisy of claiming to defend public health care while allowing privatization to spread and the hypocrisy of saying they support the Canada Health Act and then refusing to enforce it are not what Canadians need. We need universal pharmacare. We need mental health care fully integrated into the public system. We need to defend and expand dental care. We need to train and retain health care workers. We need to enforce the Canada Health Act aggressively. I want to finish by spending a few moments on international development and peacekeeping. Canada’s role in the world has diminished. Canada once played a respected role in peacekeeping, diplomacy and international development, but the budget would continue a retreat from that leadership with a $2.7-billion cut to international development. This comes at a time when around the world, global insecurity is fuelling economic collapse and causing people to suffer everywhere. On the back of Donald Trump shutting down U.S. aid, Canada had an obligation to stand up. Canada had an obligation to be that country that so many of us believe we can be. Instead, the government has chosen to retreat once again from human rights. The budget is about choices, and the choices the government has made are very disappointing.

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government makes promises it does not keep. It promised to cover medicine, mental health care, and dental care for all Canadians, but it did not do it. An Alberta health care law breaks the Canada Health Act. The federal government must defend the law.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I feel as though that was one of the most dishonest speeches I have ever heard in this place, to be honest. The member talks about the minister’s having dialogue with her counterpart and says that they have been assured. Is this similar to when the Liberal government asked grocery stores to behave better, and they got an assurance? Is it the same thing as when the Liberal government promised to support pharmacare for all Canadians, but then did not do it; to expand mental health care for Canadians, and then did not do it; to make sure that all Canadians had access to the dental care they require, and then backed away from those promises? Is this the same Liberal government that says the Canada Health Act should be universally accessible but refuses to meet with members of the Canadian Health Coalition, who have a legal opinion that has been created and actually says that Bill 11 breaks the Canada Health Act? It breaks the law. They should defend the law.

“Alberta is moving to private health care where rich people get treated first, while public hospitals and emergency rooms fall apart. This breaks national health rules. I want the federal government to enforce these rules and stop Alberta from doing this.”
  • Speech in the House

    Respect 93 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “whether she is deliberately allowing public health care to erode or whether she simply does not care enough to protect…”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Albertans are tired. They are tired of hearing talking points while their public health care system collapses around them. I asked the minister whether she is deliberately allowing public health care to erode or whether she simply does not care enough to protect it. What I got in response was another vague non-answer and more platitudes about working with provincial partners. Meanwhile, in Alberta, people are dying as they wait for care. That is not figurative or rhetorical; it is literal. Emergency room doctors in my province are warning that preventable deaths are happening because emergency rooms are overcrowded, understaffed and overwhelmed. Seventeen rural emergency rooms are closed today because there are not enough health care workers. Patients are being treated in hallways and storage closets. Nearly one in five Albertans leaves the emergency room without receiving care, because the wait times are so unbearable. While all of this is happening, Danielle Smith is openly dismantling public health care. She passed Bill 11, introducing two-tiered health care into Alberta for the first time in Canadian history. She is allowing doctors to charge patients privately while still billing the public system. She is diverting public money and health care workers away from the public system, and the public wait-lists grow longer. This violates the spirit and the principles of the Canada Health Act, in terms of universality, accessibility and equal care based on need, not on wealth. While I am not surprised to see this Conservative government attack health care, the silence and the complicity of the Liberal government in the face of the breaking of the Canada Health Act is shocking. We watch the Liberal government, and every single time a corporation comes knocking, it opens the doors. However, when it comes time to protect our public institutions, we hear nothing. I am very curious about whether health care is being quietly put on the block in negotiations such as CUSMA and other trade agreements, in which corporate access and investor protections are treated as untouchable but public services are treated as bargaining chips. How far is this government willing to go to accommodate corporate interests, even if it means weakening something that Canadians fundamentally believe in and fundamentally require? The minister says she supports the Canada Health Act, but support without enforcement is meaningless. If the federal government refuses to act while a province openly builds a two-tiered health care system, then what exactly is the Canada Health Act for? Right now, Albertans are watching the slow Americanization of our health care. People with money move to the front of the line, and everyone else waits longer. This is not Canadian health care, and Canadians know it. The federal government cannot keep hiding behind scripted talking points. Albertans deserve answers. When will the government enforce the Canada Health Act?

Oral Questions ·

Air Transportation

“The Ontario government is expanding the Billy Bishop airport against the wishes of the local community. The federal government should stop this plan instead of trying to sell off airports to private companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today, despite serious concerns raised by local communities, workers and public health experts about the future of Toronto’s waterfront, Ontario’s Conservative government forced through legislation to control and expand the Billy Bishop airport. Canada’s airports are critical public infrastructure built through public investment. There, and in airports across the country, the federal government has a responsibility to put public interest ahead of corporate profits. It should be stopping Doug Ford’s scheme. Why is it instead pushing its own sell-off plans for airports across this country?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“This motion threatens French and Indigenous content in Canada. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are trying too hard to please Donald Trump. That does not help Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 34 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 71 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Donald Trump becomes cranky or upset about just about anything, depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we really need to acknowledge with this motion is the threat that it puts forward towards French content and indigenous content in this country at a moment when we are seeing such pressure from the U.S. administration to undermine our sovereignty in just so many ways. There is the idea that we are appeasing Donald Trump on so many fronts. The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump becomes cranky or upset about just about anything, depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on, so when the Liberal government appeases Donald Trump and when the Conservatives kneel to Donald Trump, that is not helping Canadians. New Democrats are here to—

In response to a question from Jonathan Rowe

“This law helps Canadian artists and workers. It is based on rules we passed years ago. We should not let Donald Trump decide Canada's arts policy, and the Conservatives are wrong to fight against our culture.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 22 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that this is part of legislation that was passed years ago. This is making the playing field more fair for Canadian content creators. I think about things like Heated Rivalry. We are all so impressed and so proud when we are able to have productions like that in our country. Now there is this idea that we would allow somebody like Donald Trump to decide what our cultural policy should be and how we have any domestic policy that impacts how we support workers and how we support culture and arts in this country. It is so disappointing that this is the hill that the Conservatives decided to fight on today.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I support Canadian arts and culture. The Conservatives are wrongly trying to please Donald Trump. At the same time, the Liberals gave in to Donald Trump on the digital services tax, and Canadians got nothing back.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 42 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I represent the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. We are a hotbed of arts and culture in the province of Alberta and across the country. I am extraordinarily proud to support people within the arts sector. One thing I will say, though, is that the member talked about appeasement, about appeasing Donald Trump, and how disappointing it is for many of us in the House to see the Conservatives taking a stance to appease somebody like Donald Trump, particularly concerning our cultural identity. I will also say that the digital services tax, a tax that was also put in place to make sure that the web giants were paying their fair share, was something that the Liberal government decided to give to Donald Trump as some sort of an inauguration gift. Canadians paid the price and got nothing in return.

“I want the House to vote against this motion. Foreign streaming companies like Netflix should pay money to support Canadian films, television, and artists. The Conservatives want to protect big American corporations instead of Canadian workers and our own culture.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Bourassa. I want to start by talking about the workers who this impacts. I want to talk about the grip in Sudbury, the indigenous filmmaker in Winnipeg and the French-language screenwriter in Rimouski. I want to talk about my friend Marcus, who is a boom operator in Vancouver. I will state this very plainly: New Democrats will continue to fight for workers’ rights, and that includes those who work within the arts and culture sector in this country. We will not stand with multi-billion-dollar corporations and web giants over Canadian workers. That is the ultimate contradiction that we see with this motion today. The leader of the official opposition claims to stand for working Canadians, but today he is standing up for Netflix, Amazon and Disney. The CRTC’s new framework requires streaming services to direct 15% of their Canadian revenues to support domestic programming. That is part of a $2-billion support system for Canadian and indigenous content. It is not a punitive surprise. It follows the Online Streaming Act that was passed three years ago, after repeated calls from Canadian entertainment companies, broadcast workers and artists to modernize a decades-old Canadian content regulation. Let us put these numbers into perspective. Traditional broadcasters like CTV currently pay between 30% and 45%. Under the new framework, they will actually lower that payment to 25%, so we are asking the web giants to pay 15%. It is not radical. That is fair. That is fairness to Canadian content producers. Canada’s film and television production industry generates nearly $12 billion in GDP and $10.2 billion in production volume, and it supports over 181,000 jobs. Those jobs do not fund themselves. Critically, the contributions are not a direct tax on consumers. That is clearly a Conservative talking point, not a fact. It is a contribution requirement on corporations. I want to quote the Toronto president of ACTRA, Kate Ziegler, who said: Decisions to strengthen support for Indigenous and Canadian content and to improve discoverability are a step in the right direction. For ACTRA Toronto performers, this has the potential to generate new opportunities, strengthen domestic production, and help ensure Canadian audiences continue to see themselves reflected on screen. The Canadian Media Producers Association said the CRTC’s decisions: reflect the underlying philosophy of the Online Streaming Act, namely that broadcasters and streaming services that generate significant revenues from Canadian subscribers and viewers must also invest in Canadian programming. This is also about supporting French and indigenous production, to ensure that we have that content, to ensure that those stories are being told. That is an important role that we have in this country. The Conservatives are trying to stop the creation of that content at a moment in time where our cultural sovereignty is at risk. We are New Democrats, and workers need us. We need to be supporting them, and we will. We always will. Today, we are going to stand with the 15,000 ACTRA members and the 181,000-plus workers in the creative sector. We are not going to stand with the shareholders for Netflix. Yes, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. New Democrats have been saying that for years, but the answer to that is not to let web giants off the hook, because Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and Apple TV+ are not struggling small businesses. They are trillion-dollar corporations that are extracting billions from Canadian subscribers every year, and they should pay into the system that they are benefiting from. If the Leader of the Opposition is so worried about the cost of living for ordinary Canadians, why is his solution to cut the levy on some of the wealthiest corporations in the world? Who is he actually fighting for? The NDP believes in making the ultrawealthy and giant corporations pay their fair share so that we can fund the services, the storytelling, the creation and the building of our cultural sector, as well as the jobs that Canadians are depending on. The strategy of appeasement does not work. History has told us that it does not work. We know, as we negotiate with the United States, that there is an explicit exception in CUSMA that allows us to take measures to support and protect cultural industries. Canada fought for that clause. It is in the agreement, and we should be using it. I understand that the Conservatives want to pre-emptively roll over. They want to pre-emptively gut our own cultural policy to soothe Trump’s trade hawks, but we do not make domestic policy based on what Donald Trump wants. We make our policy based on what Canadians want and what Canadians need. If we abandon content funding every single time Donald Trump objects, we no longer have a cultural policy. I want members to think about the absurdity of that. If we have a policy dictated by Washington, we have already given up our cultural policy. I want to get back to the people who work in this industry. I want to talk about the actor in Edmonton who got their first gig on a CAVCO-funded production, the indigenous storyteller whose documentary in Edmonton was made possible because of the system that requires investment and the journalists in a small market who kept their job because local news got funded. These are the stakes that we are talking about right now. The NDP stands for a Canada that tells its own stories, employs its own workers and refuses to be hollowed out by corporations that are being cowed by foreign governments. We call on the House to reject this motion, to stand with Canadian workers and to affirm that Canadian culture is not a trade irritant. It is who we are. The Conservatives want to bow to Trump. They want to support big corporations trying to rip Canadians off. New Democrats will always choose Canadians over corporate profits.

Statements by Members ·

National Day of Mourning

“Today is the National Day of Mourning for workers killed or hurt on the job. The government needs to protect workers instead of weakening safety rules and unions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on National Day of Mourning, we honour those who went to work and never came home. Every year, hundreds of Canadian workers are killed on the job and hundreds of thousands more are injured or become sick, left to fight for the compensation they have already earned. These workers are parents, daughters, sons and neighbours. They are the people who keep our country running, and right now, their lives are worth less to the government than a balance sheet. Labour protections are being gutted while unions are being undermined and workers who speak up are being pushed out. New Democrats have always stood with workers. We come from workers. We are the party of workers. On this Day of Mourning, we know that mourning without action is not enough. The greatest tribute we can pay to the fallen is to make sure that the living are protected, so today, we mourn the dead and fight like hell for the living.

Oral Questions ·

Steel and Aluminum Industry

“The government gave trade advisory seats to many CEOs and politicians, but shut out major unions. I want to know if the government will add more worker representatives before trade talks begin.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government is not listening to steelworkers. The government left USW off its CUSMA advisory council. It also shut out the Canadian Labour Congress and the over three million Canadian workers it represents. Instead, the government gave seats to more than a dozen CEOs, prominent Conservatives and just two labour representatives. How can the government claim to be there for workers while refusing to give them seats at the table? Will the government expand worker representation before CUSMA negotiations begin, starting with the CLC?

“The Prime Minister said Canada will use Canadian steel for Canadian projects, but we cannot make enough yet. I want the government to work with steelworkers to create a plan that supports workers and helps our steel industry grow.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, steelworkers were in Ottawa this week reminding the government that steel is the backbone of our economy and our economic sovereignty. The Prime Minister has said that Canada will use Canadian materials in Canadian projects, but Canada does not yet have that capacity. Will the government take advantage of this incredible opportunity to build Canadian capacity, to grow our industry and to invest in workers? Will the government work with the United Steelworkers to develop and implement the comprehensive steel industrial strategy they are calling for?