Don Davies

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.