Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters Canada and other unions representing millions of workers across this country have told the government very clearly that Bill C-39's new powers would undermine the fundamental right of workers to strike, to withhold their labour. These organizations participated in the Liberals' sham consultations. They raised these concerns directly, and yet the government proceeded with legislation that would give the minister extraordinary new powers to intervene in a legal strike. Why did the minister ignore the warnings from Canada's labour movement, and will he commit to removing these new powers from Bill C-39?

Mr. Speaker, twice this summer the Canada Industrial Relations Board found that the Bank of Canada broke the law by using scabs against striking security officers represented by PSAC. Twice. The Liberal government has done absolutely nothing to fix this, which is hardly surprising coming from a government that introduced legislation yesterday to undermine workers' right to strike. When will the government stop siding with employers and start standing up for workers, or does the government believe that labour law is something that only workers have to obey?

Madam Speaker, the leader of the official opposition talks a lot about affordability. For millions of Canadians, affordability is not about tax cuts or corporate profits. It is about whether they can actually pay their bills, of course. This is particularly challenging for seniors. I think about Bev, a senior in my constituency who is very worried about becoming unhoused. Seniors are the population fastest becoming unhoused in the country right now. My question is simple. Will the Conservative Party commit to specific measures to help seniors afford groceries, such as increasing income supports, strengthening the guaranteed income supplement and indexing benefits to the real cost of living? Will the member commit to that now?

Mr. Speaker, I have requested an emergency debate because the government has announced a fundamental change to some of Canada's most important public infrastructure. Parliament needs to debate it now before decisions are locked in. Last week, the Prime Minister and his cabinet announced that the operations and long-term value of four of Canada's largest airports would be open to private investment, potentially including foreign investors. Let us be very clear about what we are talking about. This is not a private company operating a coffee shop or a clothing store inside an airport. This is about opening the major operations and long-term value of four of Canada's largest airports, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal, to private investors, potentially including U.S. or other foreign investors, for decades to come. The selling off of these operations has serious security and sovereignty implications and could compromise the safety of Canadians in travel. These airports are currently operated by not-for-profit airport authorities. They serve millions of Canadians and support hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers. Make no mistake about it, private business wants a piece of our airports to make money. The Canadian Labour Congress put it plainly: “Private investors don’t put billions into airports unless they expect to make billions back.” There are no magic profits. That money has to come from somewhere, and that is going to mean higher fees and higher costs for Canadians, Canadian workers losing their jobs, reduced services, and fewer safety precautions. The result is that Canadians will pay more for less safe and worse airport experiences. Canadian workers will lose their jobs while private investors extract profits from infrastructure that Canadians built and rely upon. These airports already generate enormous public value. Airport rents alone return roughly $525 million a year to the federal government. That is why this is urgent. I am asking the Speaker to consider this urgent request. The government has announced the plan. The process is moving forward. Parliament has a narrow window to examine the consequences before long-term consequences are enacted.

Mr. Speaker, on April 17, I asked the Minister of Energy a very simple question: What would it take for the government to protect Canadians, to respect indigenous rights and to actually enforce our environmental laws? The minister told me that Canada has strict standards, independent regulations and a strong safety record, but we have heard this before. None of this matters if the government refuses to enforce the legislation, refuses to enforce the laws that are in place in Canada to protect Canadians, to protect our environment and to ensure that indigenous rights are respected. If we do not enforce that legislation, it does not matter, and the government has shown time and time again that it will not use the tools at its disposal to protect the environment in northern Alberta. In April, Imperial Oil's pipeline north of Cold Lake released 843,000 litres of bitumen and salt water that contained hydrocarbons, heavy metals, sulphur and other contaminants. That came after the Kearl disaster, when approximately 5.3 million litres of contaminated waste water spilled beyond the mine lease. When Parliament investigated Kearl, Imperial Oil acknowledged that seepage from its tailing system occurs and that the company's approach is to manage that. It is not to fix it, not to protect communities downstream, not to ensure that the water people are swimming in and drinking and that the animals and wildlife are using is clean, but to contain and manage it. The Athabasca watershed contains enormous volumes of oil sands tailings, and indigenous nations have been raising concerns about contamination and the protection of their water for years. I think about the incredible work that Chief Adam, Chief Tuccaro and Grand Chief Mercredi have done. They have called out the environmental disaster that is happening on their land, yet the government fails to protect the environment in northern Alberta. It is not just limited to the oil sands. I think of the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Those are the headwaters that provide drinking water to millions of Albertans, yet Albertans have had to repeatedly fight proposals for coal mining in these watersheds. Corb Lund's “water not coal” campaign helped mobilize hundreds of thousands of Albertans around a single message that our water is more important than corporate profits and more important than coal mining by an Australian company. We are still waiting for the federal government to bring in selenium regulations. We are still waiting for the federal government to use the tools it has at its disposal to protect our water. The government can use the Species at Risk Act, it can use the Impact Assessment Act and it can use the Fisheries Act, yet it chooses time and time again to fail to protect the water and the land in northern Alberta and in our cherished Rocky Mountains. Once again I ask the government this: Why, when Albertans so desperately need the federal government to step up and use the tools at its disposal to protect Albertans, does the government continue to sit on its hands?

Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest, I am so frustrated listening to that response. It has been decades since the alarm was raised about the health impacts on people living in the Fort Chip area. Every year, Chief Adam and Grand Chief Mercredi come to Ottawa and ask the government to take action. What we get from the government is consultation after consultation and no meaningful action, no meaningful enforcement and no meaningful commitment to making sure that the water in northern Alberta is protected and that the indigenous landowners in that area are being respected.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment, on behalf of New Democrats, to thank all the people who make the work that we do in the House possible. We all often come here thinking that we are the most important people in this place, and after just a very short amount of time here, we all realize that it is, in fact, all of those who do not stand in the House of Commons, all of those who do the work behind us, who make this place run so very well. We are all so grateful for the work that they do, to everyone at the table, to the clerks and to our incredible pages. We are going to have to get our own water all summer. It is a hardship that we are going to have to bear. To the Journals and the Hansard staff, I do not understand how they keep their decorum and make us sound much smarter than we sometimes deserve. To the security personnel, to the Sergeant-at-Arms, I thank them so much for keeping us safe in this moment, when times become much more dangerous as we go. To the food services staff and the cafeteria staff who keep us fed, we are so grateful for that. I thank them. I thank the maintenance and client service personnel, the legal staff who keep us out of trouble, and the Library of Parliament staff, who make us sound smarter than I know we all are. I thank the tech staff, the IT staff who keep our phones running and keep our technology going for us. I thank the Speaker and the Speaker's office, and of course our incredible interpreters, who ask us so gently and kindly to send our notes, and we only sometimes do. I want to thank them very much as well. On my end, I also want to make sure that I thank the New Democrats' staff. It has been a difficult year for many of us. I am so very grateful for Blake, Christine, Jen, Peter and every one of the staff, who have been with us and who have done the important work. I would like to echo the thanks we have heard from other parties. Our families endure an awful lot while we come to do our work in this place. I also want to thank our families. I want to take this moment to encourage every one of us to go back to our ridings and to reflect on the great privilege that we have in serving in this place, and to come back in September perhaps kinder, perhaps more forgiving and perhaps more interested in rolling up our sleeves and getting to work for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister claimed that Trump's war in Iran was “worth it.” Thousands were killed, including schoolchildren. Schools and hospitals were destroyed. Families and entire communities were displaced. Billions of dollars were wasted, and higher energy costs made life more expensive for Canadians who are already struggling. The world is no safer today than it was before the war. The Prime Minister hastily supported the attacks that started this war. How much more suffering is needed before the Prime Minister realizes this war was not “worth it”?

Mr. Speaker, more than 3,000 volunteers helped collect over 200,000 signatures from Albertans who are determined to protect our mountains, our rivers and our drinking water from the threat of coal mining. Albertans have spoken loudly and clearly. They know coal mining threatens critical watersheds, harms our wildlife habitat and risks contaminating the water that communities, ranchers, farmers and indigenous peoples depend upon. For years, Albertans have been fighting to stop reckless coal development in one of the most beautiful and ecologically important regions in our country. Today's achievement is proof that when governments refuse to listen, citizens will organize and make themselves impossible to ignore. Congratulations to Corb Lund, the Water Not Coal campaign and the hundreds of thousands of Albertans who stood up for our Rocky Mountains and our shared future. I am so proud to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud today to stand and table petition e‑6783, which was signed by 10,182 Canadians. These Canadians are asking the government to apply the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act consistently for all those Canadian citizens returning from conflict zones. They are asking the Canadian government to initiate investigations and lay charges if warranted, and to co-operate with the international justice system, among other calls for action.

Mr. Speaker, I also have petition e‑6990. This is a petition that has been signed by over 6,000 Canadians. They are asking the government to amend the Canada Pension Plan act so that any province, including my province of Alberta, would require at least two-thirds of the other provinces to agree with that plan. They are asking for that to be applied because it is similar to other parts of the Canada Pension Plan act that require a two-thirds agreement.

Mr. Speaker, Doug Ford wants to force through a $5‑billion Billy Bishop expansion that the people of Toronto do not want. It is a good thing the Ontario NDP is fighting back, but where are the Liberal members of Parliament? They are nowhere to be found. In fact, they are hiding behind a sham consultation that community groups say is a waste of time, with no business case, no environmental assessment and no details. If Toronto Liberal MPs will not represent the people who elected them, will the Prime Minister step in and stop this scheme?

moved that Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (fair representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand today to debate this piece of legislation I have brought forward. I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, for seconding this bill. As a new Democrat, I can say I am so proud of our caucus and the work we have done in this Parliament to support and strengthen workers' rights. I think about the repealing of clause 107. I think about the work we have done to close loopholes in the anti-scab legislation to ensure workers are paid for the work that they do. I am so proud to be a New Democrat and to stand with members like the member for Courtenay—Alberni as the party representing workers in the House. I am also proud to speak to this legislation, Bill C-259, the fair representation bill, or as I like to call it, the wolf in sheep's clothing bill. Today, Parliament will debate a simple idea that workers deserve real representation. The fact is that real unions represent workers and fake unions do not. I want to thank the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers, the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, LiUNA Local 1611, the Building Trades, the International Union of Operating Engineers, IBEW, UA and other workers who stood with me today to talk about why this legislation is so important. I also want to thank the many unions and workers across this country who have pushed for this legislation and who have supported me along the way. I think about Scott Crichton, a member of IBEW Local 424 in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, or Tyler Bedford from the Operating Engineers who have worked so closely to make sure this legislation comes to fruition. Unions support this legislation because unions in this country, the vast majority of them, do what unions are supposed to do. They fight for workers, raise wages, improve safety and strengthen communities. This bill is not about them. They are unions that do the work they are supposed to do. This bill is about fake unions. It is about unions that represent companies, not the workers. It is about unions that do not fight for their workers. It is a danger, because those are the unions that drive down wages, make workplaces less safe and undermine workers' rights. That happens within those unions, but it also happens across sectors, because what impacts one worker impacts us all. I want to be very clear that workers have asked for this legislation. This came from workers. It came from the concerns that have been raised by labour over many years. When we wanted to bring this legislation forward, we worked with workers, labour leaders, members of the building trades and others across the labour movement. I want to acknowledge the incredible work that Terry Parker and my friends at the Building Trades of Alberta did to help move this legislation forward. We have strong support from organized labour because real unions have nothing to fear from worker accountability. Real unions support this bill because it protects the rights they have fought for generations to win. Right now, there is a gap in the legislation. Federal law does recognize that employer-dominated unions are a problem. Subsection 25(1) of the Canada Labour Code says that employer-dominated unions cannot be certified. However, here is where my legislation is so necessary and so important: There is no way for workers to remedy that after certification. There is no worker-driven review process. There is no dedicated mechanism. There are no specific remedies. There are provinces in this country that have much stronger regulations against company unions, and federal workers deserve that same protection. What would this bill do? This bill would give workers a practical way to fight back. It would create a process for workers to raise concerns. It would allow workers to seek a review where there are allegations of employer domination or influence. It would require organizations to demonstrate their independence when concerns are raised. It would provide remedies where employer domination is found. It would reinforce a very simple principle that unions must answer to workers, not employers. This matters. It matters because when employer-dominated unions put employers first, we know that wages suffer. We know that working conditions suffer. We know that safety on the job for Canadian workers suffers. We know that bargaining power, a fundamental right of every worker in this country, the ability to bargain effectively, is taken away, and that right suffers. Workers deserve the confidence that the organization speaking for them is actually on their side. I want to tell the House a story as to why this matters. Today I had some folks from British Columbia join me. They told a story about Sam Fitzpatrick. This story illustrates for me why this issue is not theoretical. This is not just about what happens on paper. It impacts workers in our country. Sam Fitzpatrick was a 24‑year‑old who was working in Squamish, B.C. He was killed on the job in 2009. There were serious safety failures that were documented. Previous incidents were documented. His employer had promised it would do better, that it would not endanger the workers' safety. Concerns were raised. Risks remained. There was a WCAT review. In fact, the employer was described as “heedless”, “wanton”, “extreme”, “gross” and “highly irresponsible”. This is the employer. The union representing Sam Fitzpatrick was the CLAC, the Christian Labour Association of Canada. It wrote in and said, “a presidential penalty was not appropriate given the employer's prior demonstrated commitment to safety.” The CLAC literally argued that the corporation should be fined less for its incompetence and its failure to protect the life of a worker. It is unbelievable. A worker was killed, the family was seeking accountability, and the union representing that worker argued against the harshest penalty. That is not what a real union does. That is the opposite of what a real union does. Workers expect more from a union. Workers deserve more from a union. That is not the only example. Today I stood in the foyer with a photo of Sam Fitzpatrick, a 24‑year‑old worker. My children are that age. That man had parents. He had friends. He had people who loved him. There are other examples. In 2025, at the Executive Hotel Le Soleil, the B.C. Labour Relations Board found unlawful employer interference in the employees' choice of union. Management steered workers toward the CLAC and away from Unite Here Local 40. The board later voted that the employer's voluntary recognition agreement with the CLAC needed to be voided. It happened again with the EXchange Hotel in 2026, where there were findings of employer interference. There was pressure. There were inducements. There was employer support. Decisions were issued in 2025 and 2026. This is still happening in this country. This is not history. This is happening right now. I want to talk a bit about the international context. Union independence is recognized internationally as a core principle. In 2011, the ITUC suspended CLAC and said that workers deserve representation independent from employer influence. This is all happening right now. Millions of dollars in federal funding flowed to CLAC last year. The same year that the B.C. Labour Relations Board brought a finding against it for not properly representing its members, the federal government was spending millions of dollars and diverting that money there. In my home province of Alberta, the UCP government just announced a new $4-million training initiative being delivered in partnership with the CLAC. Workers are raising concerns, yet governments are continuing to write cheques. Workers deserve confidence, before public money is spent and before public money is handed over, that it is going to unions that represent workers. I will tell members some good news. Just months ago, more than 800 workers at an Edmonton manufacturing facility voted to leave CLAC and join the operating engineers, because they were dissatisfied with the representation they were receiving. It was one of the largest departures from CLAC in Canadian history, and it happened not decades ago, but last year. When I talk about federally regulated workplaces, I am talking about everyone who is working in those workspaces, which is roughly one million workers. These are workers in transportation, telecommunications, broadcasting, banking, grain handling, longshoring and federally regulated construction. These workers deserve protection. They deserve to be represented by a union that will represent them and only them. That is what this legislation would do. In this country, workers are worried. They are worried about affordability. They are worried about wages. They are worried about job security. The economic war we are having with the United States, the tariffs and the economic impacts are causing uncertainty. The moves that the Liberal government is making to strip workers of their rights, such as the use of section 107, a backdoor method to force workers back to work, continue to undermine the rights of workers in this country. This legislation would give workers their rights back, because workers need stronger protections, not weaker protections. The Liberals and the Conservatives say they support workers. This is their opportunity to prove it. Real unions answer to workers. Employer-dominated unions do not. Fake unions do not. Let us put power back where it belongs. Let us put power back with workers.

Madam Speaker, it is very clear. A good union that represents workers' rights is elected democratically by the members, and it answers only to the members. That is the definition of a good, democratic union. I stood today with Siobhán Vipond, the vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and she spoke about the democracy within the labour movement. I think it is important for us to recognize that democratically elected leadership that is responsible to the members, and only to the members, is a key component of good union leadership, of good union representation. That is what this bill would do. It would actually protect the right of workers to trust and know, without any doubt, that who is representing them is only representing their interests.

Madam Speaker, the 25% threshold is a screening threshold. It is not a decision threshold. I think that is important to clarify. It ensures that a meaningful number of workers support a review before the board is asked to investigate allegations of employer domination. At the same time, it is significantly lower than the threshold required to remove a bargaining agent or trigger a representation vote. The threshold balances accessibility for workers with the stability in labour relations.

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent question. These principles of democracy that protect workers' rights are fundamental. She is absolutely correct in that the attacks on worker rights are not just happening by our federal government in Canada. They are happening around the world. Corporations are undermining workers' rights. Governments in Canada and around the world are undermining workers' rights. People are trying to take away the rights of workers to use their right to collective bargaining, to demand safe workspaces, to demand pay for the work that they do.

Mr. Speaker, steel is not just another commodity in a trade ledger. Steel is the backbone of our economy. It builds our bridges, our transit systems, our housing, our energy projects and our manufacturing capacity. It is quite simply economic sovereignty in physical form, and if we cannot make it here, we are not economically sovereign. Steelworkers were in Ottawa recently to remind the government of that reality, and they were very clear. They did not come for photo ops; they came for a plan. They came for a national steel strategy, because steelworkers know something the government too often forgets: We do not build national economies by shutting out the people who actually do the work, the people who actually build. The United Steelworkers are calling for a comprehensive national steel industrial strategy, one that invests in domestic capacity, that strengthens supply chains and that protects good union jobs across this country. They are joined by the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents over three million workers who have been equally clear that workers must be at the table when decisions are being made about their futures. Right now, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing CEOs and political insiders included in advisory structures. We are seeing labour excluded or minimized, and we are seeing the very people who built this economy treated as an afterthought in the decisions that shape it. That raises a simple question for me: How can the government claim to stand with workers while locking them out of the room? We have seen what happens when we invest in Canadian steel capacity. In Sault Ste. Marie, recent steel investments that were supported by the United Steelworkers and Local 2251 helped modernize production, and that is a great step, but it is a one-off. That is not a strategy, and what we need in this country is a strategy to move us forward. When steel is strong, the communities in which steelworkers work are strong, and when steel is weakened, everything else follows. I asked the government two simple questions. Will it work with the United Steelworkers to develop and implement a comprehensive national steel strategy? Why has it excluded labour, specifically the USW and the Canadian Labour Congress, from the CUSMA advisory council? Of course, we were happy to see that Unifor was included in that, but for the three million Canadians represented by the Canadian Labour Congress, not having the CLC at that table is a very big oversight. We are in a period of extraordinary trade instability. Tariffs and trade disruptions from the United States are not theoretical. They are real, and they are already hurting Canadian workers. That does not mean things on a spreadsheet. That means people not being able to pay their mortgage, not being able to pay their bills and not knowing where their next paycheque is coming from. We need to see more urgency, we need to see more action and we need to see the government recognize the impact this is having on Canadian workers.

Mr. Speaker, that response shows that the government is not acting with the urgency that workers require. Instead of a place at the table, and instead of an actual strategy, the government is giving announcements without accountability and consultations without inclusion, and it is getting public dollars without finding guarantees. This is why New Democrats are very clear: Every federal dollar spent to support Canadian industry must come with enforceable conditions, not voluntary commitments and not good intentions, but legal and binding protections for Canadian jobs, Canadian production and Canadian workers. There must be no more blank cheques to corporations and broken promises to workers. If taxpayers take the risk, workers deserve the return. This is not radical. This is basic accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of Bill S-227. I want to thank Senator Mohammad Al Zaibak for introducing the bill, and I want to note that this legislation, an identical bill, was brought forward and passed unanimously in the previous Parliament but of course died on the Order Paper before receiving Senate consideration. Canada's Arab communities have contributed enormously to our country, and they deserve the recognition that reflects their place in our shared story. Canada is home to more than one million Arab Canadians. The first recorded arrival of people of Arab origin dates back to 1882, in the early years following Confederation. Arab Canadians have enriched every aspect of Canadian life, including arts and culture, language and literature, and food and hospitality. I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to raise people's awareness of the incredible Lebanese and Arab food in my community, including at Fattoush, a restaurant on Whyte Avenue in my riding that is run by Randa Alead. It is a wonderful place. Everyone should stop in if they are in Edmonton. Arab Canadians have contributed to business and entrepreneurship, and to public service and politics. I would like to give a shout-out to Joe Hak, a Lebanese Canadian who unfortunately passed away two months ago but who was a real leader in our community, a real leader for Lebanese Canadians in Edmonton and across this country. Arab Canadians have been leaders in faith communities and with civic leadership. Arab Canadians are not newcomers to the Canadian story. They have helped write the Canadian story for generations. Heritage months are opportunities to educate, celebrate and reflect, and they help future generations understand the contributions of communities that have helped build this country. Recognition sends an important message to young Arab Canadians that they belong, that they are valued and that their stories matter. That is important for many reasons, but I reflect on the last few years when I have travelled across this country speaking to people, as the foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party, about what has been happening within Palestine. I also reflect on people of Arab descent's telling me that they feel like their government does not see them and does not see them as citizens. This moment in time is important for us as Parliament and as a country to recognize the important contributions Arab Canadians make. It is also important when we look at the rise of Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism and anti-Palestinian racism across this country. Members will recall the Quebec City mosque attack in 2017, the murder of the Afzaal family in London, Ontario, in 2021 and the ongoing vandalism and attacks targeting mosques and Muslim communities. In my city of Edmonton and across this country, Arab Canadians continue to experience discrimination and hate. Where hate tries to divide us, parliamentarians have a responsibility to affirm that every community belongs. The bill is about more than symbolism. It would create opportunities for schools, community organizations, municipalities, provinces and cultural institutions to celebrate and educate Canadians about the diversity and achievements of Arab communities. It would highlight the diversity of the Arab world and the many cultures, languages, traditions and experiences represented within it. New Democrats proudly support Bill S-227. We reaffirm our commitment to standing against racism, colonialism, hatred and war, and we celebrate the rich contributions of Arab Canadians to Canada's social fabric. Arab heritage month would help ensure that the stories, achievements, struggles and contributions of Arab Canadians are recognized not only during one month each year but as an essential part of Canada's past, present and future. I urge all members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, happy Pride Month. This month, we celebrate the joy, courage and resilience of queer, trans and two-spirited communities across Canada. Pride is a celebration, but it is also a protest. It was born from people standing up and demanding dignity, equality and freedom to live openly as themselves. That is why I am especially proud to congratulate Pride Corner in my constituency. For five years, Pride Corner has rejected hate and brought people together in community and joy. To every queer, trans and two-spirited person in this country, they are loved, they belong and they are not alone. Happy Pride Month. Be proud, be loud and let us keep fighting for a better future for all.

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I would like to present today. The first petition is e-7157. It has been signed by 1,443 Canadians. These Canadians are alarmed by the fact that the Iranian regime is carrying out executions of political prisoners, protesters and Iranians who are exercising their fundamental freedoms. Detainees face imminent risk of execution after unfair trials, and petitioners are calling on Canadian members of Parliament to politically sponsor individuals imprisoned in Iran who face risk of execution. Petitioners are urging the Government of Canada to recognize and back political sponsorship efforts, to establish a framework for political sponsoring of individuals facing execution or several human rights violations abroad, and to take immediate diplomatic and international action to pressure the Iranian regime to release political prisoners on behalf of the petitioners.

Mr. Speaker, I also present petition e-6834 signed by 1,444 Canadians. These Canadians are concerned by the anti-Palestinian racism they see on clear display with the Liberal government. The petitioners note that since the beginning of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, over 21,000 Palestinian children have become disabled, since October 7, 2023. They are calling on the government to create a special program to issue emergency temporary resident permits for wounded children and their parents and siblings. They urge the government to change impossible biometrics requirements, making them more in line with other emergency programs. Finally, they ask that the government work with NGOs and health care facilities to coordinate care.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague as well. She is somebody I have learned a lot from in the House, and I appreciate her mentorship. The fact of the matter is that every single budget is about choices. Every bill that comes forward to the House from the government is about the choices the government is making. Time and time again what we are seeing is a Liberal government that is putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of Canadian families. At a moment in time in our country when people cannot afford to live, when folks are worried about their jobs and when they are worried about the security of our economy, what they are seeing is a constant investment in corporations at the expense of Canadians. What that looks like for an everyday Canadian is that they still cannot afford groceries and rent, they are still struggling to make sure their bills get paid, yet they are seeing time and time again corporations getting the benefit of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not living up to its obligations, and this is one of the things that are irritants to people across this country. The way we solve issues of separatist sentiment is to make sure the federal government is proving to citizens across this country that there is real value in staying part of our country, by making sure we are investing in the health care system, making sure we are protecting the CPP and making sure that when we give dollars to the provinces, they are able to deliver the services people are entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizens were subjected to physical, sexual and psychological abuse while illegally detained by Israeli forces last week. Canadians report being beaten and stabbed, while other international detainees report torture and rape by Israeli forces. This week, The New York Times and the UN confirmed wide-ranging sexual abuse and torture of Palestinian detainees, and this abuse is being celebrated by Israeli government ministers. Canada's inaction must end. When will Canada impose sanctions on the Israeli government and suspend trade with Israel?

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.

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.

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.

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—

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?

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?

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the fact that, right now, Canadians across this country are really struggling to pay for groceries, to pay for rent, to find housing and to pay for gas. The Liberal government brought forward a spring economic statement that completely missed an opportunity, an opportunity for the government to show that it understood what Canadians were dealing with, the challenges that Canadians were facing. There is nothing for renters. There is nothing for people who use public transit. There is nothing that would help people with the affordability crisis they are facing. In fact, the government is just redoing announcements in the most typical Liberal fashion. One of the things my colleague spoke about was the health care system and the need for us to protect the Canada Health Act, as well as the need for us to look at those affordability things, such as dental care and pharmacare. If we want to talk about something that will make life more affordable for Canadians, it would be ensuring that their pharmaceuticals are paid for and that they are covered. It would be ensuring that dental care for themselves, their children and their families is covered. This is something that makes life more affordable. What would it look like for people in my province of Alberta if the Liberal government had actually lived up to the promises it made to New Democrats and the promises it made to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I saw in this budget that alarmed me was the change to the contributions for the Canada pension plan. I have been very concerned about the Canada pension plan because in my province of Alberta there has been a serious attack on it by the Conservative government in that province. I brought forward legislation, Bill C-207, that would protect the CPP, but the government did not choose to do that. In fact, it chose to reduce the contributions. I wonder if that is because our current Liberal government, or should I say Progressive Conservative government, sees the CPP the same way the Conservatives do, as a business tax instead of deferred wages that, in fact, workers have contributed to so they can have a dignified retirement. The CPP is something we should all be proud of in this country. We should be contributing to it so we can ensure that people in our communities can retire with dignity and have that security for their senior years. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on this reduction in the contributions for the CPP.

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?

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?

Mr. Speaker, 130 students from Gaza have been waiting over two years to continue their studies at 26 Canadian universities, including the University of Alberta. These brilliant graduate students have survived genocide. They have lost family members. They are trying to get into universities to continue their study, despite the fact that the Israeli forces have destroyed every university in Gaza. The U.K., France, Ireland and Italy have gotten students out of Gaza, but Canada has refused to expedite the process, and it is an international embarrassment. I want to know why the minister is not acting. Is it—

Mr. Speaker, 42 years ago today the Canada Health Act was passed, making it the law across Canada that health care must be provided based on need, not the ability to pay. However, the current Liberal government keeps letting Conservatives break the law. Danielle Smith's latest plan for two-tiered health care is letting the ultrarich book themselves expensive diagnostic tests and jump the line. Other premiers are watching. What will it take for the government to do its job to enforce the Canada Health Act and to protect public health care for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, while the government lets oil companies rake in record profits and gouge Canadians at the pump, Imperial Oil is now reporting another major spill of 843,000 litres of toxins, salt and bitumen. Meanwhile, indigenous leaders are waiting for action on more than a trillion litres of toxic tailings leaking into watersheds in northern Alberta. What will it take for the government to protect Canadians, to respect indigenous rights and to enforce environmental laws in this country?

Mr. Speaker, for decades, governments in this country have chipped away at the public service. When the Liberals came to power, they ran on not cutting jobs of hard-working public servants who provide these services, and yet that is exactly what they are doing across the country right now. This is about having a government that works for the people they represent. This is about whether Canadians can actually get the help that they need and access the services that they depend upon. Right now, they cannot. In my office in Edmonton Strathcona, my excellent, dedicated staff are overwhelmed, not because they are inefficient but because the system is so broken. This is what underfunding looks like. It means a worker who lost their job cannot access EI and is facing eviction. It means a senior who applied for OAS months ago still has not received their OAS and cannot pay for groceries because their benefits have not arrived. It means that a parent loses the Canada child benefit and waits half a year for it to be fixed. These are not isolated stories. This is the daily reality for Canadians. Instead of fixing this problem, the government is making it worse. Tens of thousands of public service workers are being cut. That means that there are fewer people to answer the phones, process the applications and fix the mistakes when the system gets it wrong. Therefore, wait times will get longer, errors will increase and Canadians will fall through the cracks. Cuts to food inspection mean greater risk of contaminated food reaching family dinner tables. Cuts to environmental oversight mean less protection for the air we breathe and the water we drink. Cuts to indigenous services mean fewer supports for communities that already face systemic barriers. Cuts to science mean decisions made with less evidence and more guesswork. At a time when Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, the government is making it harder for them to access the very services they depend on. Now, the government is saying that AI will fix it, that artificial intelligence is the solution. However, Canadians do not need a chatbot when they are about to be evicted. They do not need an automated response when their benefits are being denied. They do not need an algorithm deciding their future without accountability. They need a human being who will listen, who will understand and who will fix their problems. AI makes mistakes, and when government systems make mistakes, Canadians pay the price through missed payments, lost benefits, delayed care and real harm. This is not innovation. This is downloading risk onto the people who can least afford it. They are seniors, people living with disabilities and families already stretched to the limit. Canadians are not asking for less government. They are asking for a government that works; a government that delivers benefits on time; and a government that sees them, hears them and helps them when they need it the most. Right now, they are not getting that and these cuts are only making it worse. We need to reverse the cuts. We need to stop the layoffs of the very people Canadians are relying upon. We need to invest in the public service so that benefits are delivered on time, calls are answered and mistakes are fixed quickly. We need to halt the reckless replacement of human services with unproven AI systems and we need to commit to building a system that is accessible to everyone. Canadians deserve that from their government.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am very disappointed by that response. The member spoke about the idea of fixing the system. I would like him to say that to the senior who called my office because they could not access OAS. When we call the government to get help, we are told, “Don't worry. Don't worry. This senior can wait. When they do get their benefits, they will get many months at one time.” It is as if the government does not understand that people actually have to buy groceries every month. They have to pay their rent every month. When that member of the House talked about impacts and how this is being fiscally responsible, he has to know, because I know that my office is not the only one. I understand that every member of Parliament has a constituency office dealing with the same issues, where Canadian citizens cannot access the services that the government is responsible for providing. The system is broken.

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Health Act guarantees Canadians universal access to public health care, but Danielle Smith is creating a private system that will hollow out health care in Alberta and spread to other provinces, making the crisis across the country even worse. At the same time, Canadians in nine provinces and territories still have no access to national pharmacare, and the health minister will not even meet with the Canadian Health Coalition to talk about it. Is the Prime Minister deliberately letting Canadian health care erode, or does he simply not care enough to protect it?

Madam Speaker, this week the NDP government in Manitoba took over a failing for-profit care home to protect seniors. Meanwhile, the federal government owns Revera, Canada's second-largest for-profit long-term care chain. In Edmonton Strathcona, 10 seniors died and 84% of the residents tested positive during COVID-19. Despite the efforts of hard-working staff, corners are cut and tragedies like this occur every day at for-profit facilities across the country. When will the government prioritize the health and safety of seniors and nationalize long-term care?

Mr. Speaker, the government is cutting thousands of public sector jobs, like those of the people who process EI, OAS and CPP claims and passports; agricultural researchers; and 1,300 food inspectors. These are not numbers on a CEO's spreadsheet. They are real people. They work to help Canadians. They support family farmers. They keep our food safe. Instead of giving his friends a tax break on their yachts and their private jets, will the Prime Minister stop these reckless cuts before public health, public services and our food safety are put at risk?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a national housing emergency. Rents are skyrocketing, home ownership is slipping out of reach and encampments are growing in every city. This did not happen by accident, and it is not inevitable; it is the result of a government that has failed to act with the urgency and the scale that this crisis demands. Housing is a human right. We need public builders, real investment in non-profit and co-op housing, strong tenant protections, indigenous housing led by indigenous communities and homes people can actually afford. The Liberals do not get it. Their budget offers only half of what the Prime Minister promised during the election, and they are delivering only a fraction of the of the half-million homes they promised. Canadians need real leadership, someone who will declare a national housing emergency to mobilize resources, to protect renters and to measure success by homes built and lives changed.

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the government on the privatization of health care in Alberta. I want to be very clear: This is something that is starting in Alberta but something that I am deeply worried will have impacts across this country. I also want to be clear: This is not a theoretical issue. This is a debate; it is a conversation that Canadians need to have. On December 22, a father of three, a 44-year-old man, went to the Grey Nuns Community Hospital in Edmonton. He waited eight hours with chest pains. He lost his life. Those three children do not have a father any longer because of our failing health care system. When I asked the minister what she was going to do to protect the Canada Health Act, to protect Canadians in this country, including Albertans, her response was wholly inadequate, talking about innovation and about building infrastructure at a moment in time when the failure of the health care system in Alberta has caused people to lose their lives. I want to quote Dr. Paul Parks. He is a Medicine Hat ER physician, and he is the past president of the Alberta Medical Association. He said, “I've been here 25 years and never seen it [so] bad.” This is the reality that we are living with, with our health care system in Alberta. Make no mistake: When Danielle Smith brings forward a bill like Bill 11, that is the biggest attack on our health care system since Tommy Douglas and the NDP made medicare a reality in this country. For every Canadian who cherishes a health care system that is public, that is universally accessible and that is delivered to every single Canadian equitably, this is the biggest threat, this threat that we see from Danielle Smith. I saw Scott Moe put up his hand and say, “That sounds great to me.” People in my province are dying because our health care system is failing, and what they need right now is a federal government that stands up and defends the law of this land, the Canada Health Act. That is our law. That is the federal law; that is our jurisdiction. I asked the minister, “Where is that line? At what point are you going to step in? At what point are you going to say that attacking our public health care system is un-Canadian? At what point do you look at that and say that Canadians do not want a two-tiered, American-style health care system?” I wrote to the Prime Minister. We have been pleading with the government to step in, to take the steps necessary and to defend the Canada Health Act to ensure that all Canadians, including Albertans, have access to publicly delivered, universally accessible health care. When I stand in this place and I ask the question of the minister, I get nothing. I am going to ask again: Where is the line? When will the Liberal government live up to its obligations to Canadians and in fact enforce the Canada Health Act?

Mr. Speaker, that was not a response to my question about when the government is going to step in to tell Danielle Smith to adhere to the Canada Health Act. I want to talk about one other piece that Danielle Smith is attacking, which is the rights of trans kids and trans people in my province. She is interfering in the relationships that trans people have with their doctors. There are three people that should be in the room when trans kids are talking about their health care: them, their parents and their doctors. The fact that Danielle Smith seems to feel that she needs to use the notwithstanding clause so that she can insert herself in those conversations is disgusting. I would ask that the government use the powers it has to protect human rights and our public health care system in this country.