Parliamentary Speeches

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a loophole in the Canada Labour Code that allows employers to use outside managers as replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for seconding the bill. In the last Parliament, the NDP secured long overdue federal anti-scab legislation to restore fairness to collective bargaining and to protect workers' rights. However, those rights are undermined when employers can bring in managers from other locations to perform the work of striking or locked-out employees, tilting the balance and prolonging disputes. We saw this during a recent Rogers strike in Abbotsford, British Columbia, where United Steelworkers technicians spent more than four months on the picket line while outside managers performed their work as scabs. No worker should have their right to strike undermined in this way. The bill would close that loophole and protect free and fair collective bargaining for Canadian workers. I urge all members to support it. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑278, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to address floor crossing, with thanks to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding. It is elementary that, in a democracy, elections are the primary opportunity for voters to express their democratic choice. When parliamentarians cross the floor to join a different party from the one they were elected with, they unilaterally alter the will of their electors. The corrosive effects in our democracy are profound: Voters lose trust in elections, the prospect that MPs have been enticed by backroom deals emerges, and the idea that only government members get resources for their constituencies brings pork barrel politics to the table. Recently, the very balance of power in the House was changed, not by voters at the ballot box but by political operatives in back rooms. While that may not be illegal, it is undeniably undemocratic. The bill would not ban floor crossing nor the ability to sit as an independent member. The latter is a valid protection against party oppression and to preserve matters of conscience. The bill would simply require those members who wish to join another party's caucus to seek the approval of their constituents through a by‑election. If an MP who wishes to join another party believes they have valid reasons for doing so, they should have no problem putting that choice to the test of their voters, where it should be. I urge all members to support this important measure to protect the democratic rights of Canadian voters. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from the good people of Vancouver Kingsway. Over 600 residents signed a petition pointing out that the military strikes on Iran have caused significant civilian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, water systems and heritage sites. They point out that the war threatens irreversible harm to the civilian population, including children, women and political prisoners, and poses grave risks to regional stability. The petitioners want the House to know that Iran's future must be determined by Iranians themselves, free from both foreign military intervention and domestic repression. They are calling on the Canadian government to urgently advocate for an immediate ceasefire and an end to all military strikes on Iranian territory, and to use Canada's influence to facilitate a durable regional peace through multilateral engagement.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by over 30,000 Canadians who point out that the Canadian Charter of Rights exists to protect individuals and minority communities from discriminatory laws. The petitioners are concerned about recent legislation enacted by the Government of Alberta and the Government of Saskatchewan that, in their view, restricts the rights, dignity and safety of transgender and gender-diverse people, particularly children and youth, including access to gender-affirming and medically appropriate health care. The petitioners note that the provincial governments have invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield that legislation from judicial review, thus preventing charter challenges. The petitioners call on the House to urge the government to exercise its disallowance power under section 90 of the Constitution Act to better protect the rights of transgender and gender‑diverse people in Canada.

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.

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—

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will be picking up some of the same themes she articulated so well. There are a few things about this motion that I want to agree with and thank my Conservative colleagues for pointing out. First of all, across this country, people are being stretched to the breaking point, and this motion is predicated on that acknowledgement. The cost of essentials, from groceries to rent and energy, continues to soar. Half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque. That is a fact I mention often in this place because I think it is profound. I want to emphasize that. Half of Canadians are two paycheques away from economic disaster. One in four parents is cutting back on food or skipping meals to feed their children. This is in a G7 country that my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House call an energy superpower, where 25% of parents cannot get enough food to eat because they are worried about their children. I also agree very much that Canadians need immediate relief from this affordability crisis. I further agree that after 11 years of Liberal government, at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves who is responsible for the current situation and who is accountable for the policy decisions that have gotten us in this position. They did not just happen. It is not only a cause of external factors, but a result of 11 years of misguided policies and lack of action by the Liberal government on the very basic foundations of affordability, which have caused so many Canadians to be struggling today. However, I do think that the Conservatives are proposing an ineffective measure that amounts to a corporate giveaway, with no guarantee that any savings will actually reach consumers, which also sets back environmental progress even more than is already the case under the current Liberal government. Conservatives want Canadians to believe that this is simply about taxes and regulation, but the evidence tells a different story. Gas prices are not set principally by tax levels or even basic supply and demand. They are shaped by global oil markets, financial speculation and the pricing power of a highly concentrated industry. The gasoline that Canadians buy today was refined weeks ago from oil produced months ago, often at much lower costs, yet prices at the pump can rise quickly in response to global events and market expectations, long before any real change in physical supply or production costs occurs. Canada produces far more oil than we consume. Three-quarters of our production is exported. Of the modest volumes imported into eastern Canada, almost none comes through the Persian Gulf. In other words, there is no energy supply shock in Canada. The cost of producing and refining gas has not changed at all in this country, yet Canadian consumers are being hammered at the pumps. That is because a significant driver of price movement is speculation in global oil markets. The truth is that traders respond to geopolitical developments and anticipated risks by bidding up prices based on expectations of disruption. These financial signals can move prices at the pump even when nothing at all has been changed in the real supply of fuel. This is also why the Conservatives' call to simply get out of the way and further deregulate the sector would not stabilize prices. In fact, it would do the opposite. It would tie Canadians even more directly to volatile global markets, where speculation and shocks are immediately passed through to consumers, rather than strengthening any insulation from them. Tax cuts and deregulation will never solve this problem. If underlying market prices are being driven up by speculation and price gouging, removing taxes does not stop that dynamic. It simply reduces government revenue while leaving the same pricing system in place. Savings will not be passed on to consumers; rather, they will be absorbed into higher corporate profit margins. What I have just said is not just theory. We have already seen this approach fail to lower prices for Canadians in real time recently. The Liberal government temporarily suspended the fuel excise tax on April 20 at a cost of approximately $2.4 billion, claiming it would reduce gas prices by 10¢ per litre. Instead, prices have continued to increase while oil and gas giants continue to post record profits. When the suspension came into effect, the national average gas price was 169.1¢ per litre. Today, the national average price is $1.83 per litre. In Vancouver, where I live, a litre of gas is now routinely over two dollars. The result of the Liberals' removing the excise tax since April 20 is that, so far, prices have gone up. Not a single consumer in Canada has benefited from the Liberal move, and this was predicted by New Democrats at the very time this excise tax reduction was put in place. This experience demonstrates a key point. When underlying market prices are driven by speculation and price gouging, tax cuts do not reliably translate into lower prices at the pump. That is one of the key flaws of the Conservative motion here today, which seeks to do that even more so. Instead, the benefit of the reduction in excise tax can be absorbed into higher margins in an already highly profitable sector. I have no doubt that oil companies have already absorbed at least a portion of that 10¢ excise tax reduction. Certainly, there was nothing in the Liberals' measure to stop them from doing that. As I have said already, the proof is in the pudding. Prices have gone up since the Liberals said their measure would take prices down. While Canadians struggle with affordability, oil and gas giants are positioned to capture massive windfall gains. We are going to see some $90 billion in profits for Canadian oil companies this year. They were slated to make $30 billion in profits this year but are now expecting an additional $60 billion in profits as a result of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Yet, Conservatives want to hand these same corporations another tax break with no mechanism that is guaranteed to ensure that consumers benefit, and the Liberals consistently refuse to bring in a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas companies and use those funds to provide real relief to Canadians who desperately need it. There is no question that Canadians need relief. The real question is this: How do we make sure that relief reaches working people instead of padding corporate balance sheets? Rather than writing a blank cheque to oil giants, the government should look at measures to cap prices at the pump, crack down on profiteering and ensure that savings are actually passed on to consumers. Other countries, and Canada itself in past moments of crisis, have recognized this basic principle. When extraordinary windfall profits are generated by crisis-driven price spikes, the public has a right to recoup a fair share of those gains rather than allowing them to be fully privatized. They have a right to expect that their governments will protect them from what is called “war profiteering”. We have done this before. During both world wars, the Canadian government used excess profit measures to ensure that wartime windfalls were redirected toward the public good and the national effort, not captured by private interests. More recently, during the COVID pandemic, the Liberal government itself imposed an excise profits tax on major banks, recognizing that extraordinary gains during a national crisis should not simply remain as private profit. New Democrats believe, respectfully, that the same principle applies today in the oil and gas sector. I will pause for a moment to say that the motion also calls on the government to permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. That standard requires primary fuel suppliers, refiners and importers to progressively reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel they produce and sell. This measure aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 million tonnes annually by 2030. It encourages fuel providers to innovate, like blending lower-carbon biofuels like ethanol into their products; invest in renewable energy sources; or purchase credits from EV charging providers. This motion would set that back, and New Democrats cannot support that. Finally, Jack Layton is the person who got the Liberal government to devote one cent of the federal excise gas tax to municipalities, including to provide stable funding for public transit. New Democrats will continue to work for positive proposals like that, instead of measures that will not help consumers, will hurt the government's ability to innovate and will pad the profits of an oil and gas sector that is already enriching itself at the cost of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad my friend gave me a chance to talk about the fantastic job that Premier Wab Kinew is doing in Manitoba. I was in Manitoba just last week, in the provincial legislature. I was attending the Canadian Labour Congress convention. The types of policies and measures that the Kinew government is bringing in, as a New Democrat government in Manitoba, would be very instructive for this government to follow, if it could. I am very proud of that government. I noticed my friend did not address the main thrust of my argument, which is that the Liberals brought in a measure on April 20 that they said would lower gas prices for Canadians. They took 10¢ off the price of a litre of gas in this country, telling Canadians that they would pay less at the pump. It was $1.69 a litre on April 20, and it is $1.81 today. It did not work. That is math, and my honourable colleague would do well to focus on the math. The New Democrats are calling for measures that will actually help consumers, not hurt them.

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats said at the time that the Liberal government had proposed this measure without any kind of cap or measure to prevent oil companies from taking a portion of that 10¢ and just hiking their price. The Liberals did nothing. Of course it had a predictable unfortunate result. New Democrats have been calling for real measures that would actually help Canadians at the pump. Bringing in a cap on prices at the pump in a time of crisis would actually help consumers. Bringing in a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies, which are making $90 billion this year and are not suffering, and using that money to help Canadians by lowering their cost of living in a variety of ways would help. While I am at it, I will just conclude by saying to my hon. colleague, who talked about previous governments, that he would do well to study the government of C.D. Howe, a Liberal government during World War II that did bring in measures to stop corporations from making obscene profits by profiting off war and to protect consumers. He should take a look and read—

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.

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?

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?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' privatization agenda is disturbing and dangerous. They are planning to sell off Canada's ports and airports, strategic assets that will end up in the hands of foreign buyers, compromising our security. When Heathrow was privatized in the U.K., it resulted in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China controlling major stakes in that airport. Passengers paid more and services declined. Will the Prime Minister commit to keeping Canada's ports and airports in public hands, or will he sell our sovereignty to the highest bidder?

Mr. Speaker, legal experts just confirmed what New Democrats have been warning for months: Alberta's private health care law violates the Canada Health Act. Danielle Smith's two-tier scheme lets wealthy patients pay to jump the line, while everyone else waits longer. This breaks a core principle of public health care: access must be based on need, not ability to pay. Upholding this value is the federal government's job, but the Liberals have refused to do it. Why is the Prime Minister doing nothing while Conservatives dismantle public health care?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about what the NDP did last Parliament. I think we stand in this place, and in our communities, with great pride. With the caucus of 2025, we brought in dental care to nine million Canadians. In the House, the NDP brought pharmacare to over 10 million Canadians and established the first public delivery of diabetes and contraceptive medications. There are people today in this country who are walking into pharmacies and walking out with their diabetes meds, using only their health care card, because of what the NDP did in the House. The NDP also brought an anti-scab law to this place, finally protecting workers who risk violence on the picket line. I cannot point to a single accomplishment of the Conservatives. With their vaunted official opposition last Parliament, they cannot point to a single thing, not one, that they delivered for Canadians. What I will say concerning the support of the Liberals is that it was not the NDP that voted for the government's throne speech. That was the Conservatives. It was not the NDP that voted for Bill C-2 and Bill C-5 and helped the government pass major economic programs in the House. It was the Conservatives who voted with the Liberals. There is only one coalition that I see in the House, which is the far-right Conservative Party sitting to my right and the progressive conservative party I see across the aisle.