Don Davies
Vancouver Kingsway, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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…”
The complete record
Every one of 260 lines we hold for Don Davies, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Under Avi Lewis's leadership, we will deliver the progressive vision our country needs and will fight for the progressive, positive change Canadians deserve.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the beginning of an exciting new chapter for Canada's New Democrats and our nation. I would like to thank the Prime Minister , the leaders of all parties and every member of the House for their collegiality during my term as interim leader, an experience that reaffirmed for me the profound privilege of serving Canadians in the heart of our democracy. Recently in Winnipeg, thousands of New Democrats came together with purpose and unity to choose our new leader, Avi Lewis. Avi understands that this moment demands bold action. He knows Canadians are facing rising unemployment, soaring grocery bills and crushing housing costs. He will fight for good jobs with fair wages and give young people real hope for the future. The truth is that Canada's NDP is needed now more than ever.”
“Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's attack on Iran is not only illegal and causing death and destruction but spreading economic chaos around the globe. Canadians are now seeing sky-high gas prices, and the cost of products from fertilizers to food are going to soar, bringing pain to every household. Economists predict that the world will face massive turmoil for years to come. What does the Prime Minister say to Canadians who are suffering serious financial harm as a result of the senseless war that he and the Conservatives supported?”
“Mr. Speaker, in Davos, the Prime Minister declared that Canada will live the truth by acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies as to rivals. Canada has rightly condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine as illegal, yet the Prime Minister is supporting the United States and Israel as they wage an equally illegal war on Iran. This double standard undermines Canada's credibility and erodes the rules-based order we depend on for our security. Why is the Prime Minister walking away from the principles he championed just weeks ago?”
“We extend our heartfelt condolences to Mr. Thandi's family and loved ones. May Waheguru bless his soul with eternal peace.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the remarkable life of Mr. Kuldip Singh Thandi, a constituent who recently passed at the age of 80 after a courageous battle with cancer. A deeply respected leader, Mr. Thandi served the Khalsa Diwan Society gurdwara with unwavering dedication. He held the positions of president and treasurer, leading always with humility, integrity and commitment. Mr. Thandi was an incredible organizer, a guiding force behind countless community initiatives and a pillar of strength for many families. His selfless service, deep wisdom and rare generosity touched innumerable lives. As he was recently described to me, Mr. Thandi was one in a million and a loyal friend whose kindness and compassion were felt by everyone who met him. His contributions to our community and country will never be forgotten.”
“Mr. Speaker, New Democrats' hearts also go out to all of the community in Tumbler Ridge. The Prime Minister told the world in Davos that Canada will be “[p]rincipled in our commitment to...the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter”. The attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel clearly violates the UN Charter, as the Prime Minister himself has admitted, yet he supports it. Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he betrayed his commitment and now supports a war he knows is illegal?”
“It did not happen in Libya, it did not happen in Iraq, it did not happen in Syria and it did not happen in Afghanistan. One cannot impose democracy from the outside by force. We need to stand with the Iranian people in a peaceful way and support them with diplomacy, with economic sanctions, with help and with nuclear proliferation processes that actually work. We are working.”
“Mr. Chair, the answer is yes. We do have an obligation to stand by the people of Iran, as we do for all oppressed people of the world. The real question that this debate engages tonight is how to do that. I know my hon. colleague is a lawyer. We cannot justify breaking the law because we think we have a good motive. I imagine Canadian society if we invoked that in our streets. If there was a family we did not like or we disagreed with, we could take it upon ourselves to violently attack them. To use such a ridiculous example shows how absolutely, utterly absurd this is on an international level. Once again, I commend to my colleagues the examples in this House. Tell me an example in the Middle East where violence has resulted in freedom for the people, democracy in their government and better welfare for their society. Show me where.”
“On the gravest questions any government can face, such as whether to commit our country to war, whether to implicate Canadian forces in illegal violence, whether to abandon the principles we proclaim, Canadians deserve clarity, consistency and moral courage. That is what we owe the people we represent. That is what I and my New Democrat colleagues are here to demand tonight.”
“However, I think the best answer is to quote the Prime Minister again just weeks ago in Davos. He invoked Václav Havel's image of the greengrocer who placed a sign in his window to avoid trouble and signal compliance, and the Prime Minister proudly declared that Canada was “taking the sign out of the window.” He said that if we think we can go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble and to hope compliance will buy safety, it will not. What sign has the Prime Minister put in Canada's window by his recent statements and clear contradictions? It is a sign that says our values are conditional, our words lack integrity and our foreign policy is for sale. That is not the Canada New Democrats envision, and we believe it is not who Canadians want us to be.”
“On the contrary, these societies are now lawless and fragmented, economic basket cases run by the people we once labelled terrorists, with prolonged conflict, civilian suffering, mass displacement and regional chaos. Most fundamentally, the events unfolding in Iran today will not bring freedom to its people. They will bring catastrophe. Second, we heard the argument that with tariffs already weaponized against our economy, Canada cannot risk further retaliation from Donald Trump. We must be honest about what that position demands, placing a price on Canada's independence, reputation and humanity. I remind the House that Canada's ability to chart our own foreign policy was not gifted to us. It was earned through immense national sacrifice, and it cannot be sacrificed on the altar of expediency or by bending to a bully.”
“I would like to address the key arguments raised by the Liberals and the Conservatives throughout this debate. The first is that Iran's regime is oppressive and dangerous. New Democrats are under no illusions about the Iranian regime or its brutal repression, nor do we dismiss concerns about nuclear proliferation, but an illegal war is not the answer. It can never be if we desire a world of order, security and justice. The real remedy is harder: diplomacy, engagement, arms control and rigorous inspections, which are tools that were working when this war was launched. Furthermore, we know from painful experience what follows U.S. regime change wars. Similar attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria did not yield stability or democracy.”
“Axworthy said Canada is abandoning its historic commitment to preventing illegal aggression. He warns that the Prime Minister is becoming a “complicit partner” to Trump's ambitions, and he indicts the Prime Minister with endorsing Trump's new “obsession with becoming an imperial power”, calling that the “worst kind of situation for Canada.” Canada ought not continue down this path. The time for ambiguity is over, and principled clarity is required now. That is why New Democrats are calling on the government to take three clear positions immediately: Condemn the war and explicitly recognize it violates the UN charter, categorically rule out any Canadian military participation and call for an immediate ceasefire and a return to multilateral diplomacy.”
“He claimed that middle powers must “live the truth” by “acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals.” (2215) Canada has rightly condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine as illegal, but when the United States and Israel launched air strikes that equally violated international law, the Prime Minister offered his support. This is a stark betrayal of the Prime Minister's own words. In our view, Canada's security is always dependent on a rules-based order that constrains great powers. The moment we decide international law applies only to our adversaries, we undermine the very protections that shield countries like our own. This is not just my position as leader of the New Democratic Party. Former Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy has been blunt in his critique of the Prime Minister 's approach. Mr.”
“One cannot logically and ethically acknowledge that a war is illegal, but continue to support it and refuse to rule out participation in that very illegality. More disturbingly, the words and actions of the Prime Minister completely contradict the foreign policy doctrine he outlined at Davos just weeks ago. There, he told the world that Canada and other middle powers “are not powerless” and that we have “the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, like respect for human rights...sovereignty and territorial integrity”. He said that we aim to be principled in our commitment to the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter.”
“This is against the backdrop of Donald Trump ripping up the previous nuclear agreement with Iran that had, by all accounts, been working, as well as the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists by Israeli forces last June, which Trump said, at the time, conclusively took out Iran's nuclear weapons capacity. However, the Prime Minister chose to endorse this war. Only four days after doing so, he then admitted that the attack appears inconsistent with international law, but in the same breath declared he supports it, with regret. Then, when asked directly whether Canada might participate militarily, the Prime Minister refused to draw a firm line, saying only that “One can never categorically rule out participation”. This is untenable.”
“nor Israel even attempted to bring a case before the Security Council, the only body under international law empowered to determine when the use of force is lawful. Put bluntly, this attack is clearly and completely illegal under international law. Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that their inspectors had found no evidence of a coordinated Iranian program to build nuclear weapons. On the contrary, at the very time the U.S. and Israel attacked, negotiations were ongoing, with mediator Oman saying that significant progress was being made and that Iran had made all the necessary concessions asked of it.”
“Instead, he said that “death and destruction” were the prime objectives of the U.S. forces. What has been the Liberal government's response to this illegal, dangerous assault? It is a position that is unprincipled, contradictory and incoherent. In fact, it has changed almost daily. The Prime Minister 's initial response offered a full-throated endorsement with no caveats, conditions or even a mention of international law. That is a telling and tragic omission. Under the UN Charter, force between states is prohibited, except in two prescribed circumstances: self-defence from an actual attack or authorization by the Security Council. These strikes met neither test. Trump administration officials admitted there was no intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack the United States, and neither the U.S.”
“and Israeli forces are deliberately striking non-military sites and civilian infrastructure, a pattern disturbingly reminiscent of Israel's recent siege of Gaza. Targets hit thus far include a girls' elementary school, attacked by missiles once to kill the children and then again to kill the parents frantically looking for their kids; hospitals; desalination plants; oil refineries; and historic cultural sites. Densely populated cities are being carpet-bombed. The death toll is now in the thousands. These are war crimes. This disregard for civilian life is no accident. It is being openly celebrated by the Trump administration. On March 2, U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared the United States will not be following “stupid rules of engagement” or fighting “politically correct wars”.”
“Mr. Chair, there are moments in global affairs when the decisions of powerful nations echo beyond their borders, when the international order is tested, when rules meant to prevent mass violence are cast aside and when innocent people pay the ultimate price. We are living through such a moment now. On February 28, the United States and Israel launched coordinated air strikes against Iran. This was a patently unlawful act of aggression and the consequences were entirely foreseeable: Iranian retaliation across the region, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a rapidly escalating conflict with massive damage and the loss of innocent lives. It is a war being prosecuted with appalling brutality and disregard for international humanitarian law. Instead of protecting civilians, U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. The government has a revenue problem. Instead of cutting and slashing services that Canadians need at a time when we are facing crises, and I must respectfully say the Conservatives would slash even more, what we need to do is raise revenue in a fair and progressive manner. That is why we should do things like tax yachts, private jets and U.S. tech giants, and make sure that the wealthiest pay a bit more. That is what the Liberals said was necessary before the last election, and it is something New Democrats believe in. We have a great country. We need to pay for the services Canadians—”
“and the tens of thousands more of their family members, because the government says it does not have enough money? It sends the message that the government cares more about pleasing Donald Trump and pleasing U.S. tech giants than it does about fundamental fairness to Canadians in this country, and New Democrats—”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that excellent question. Much is raised by that question, including the proper approach to dealing with what we all agree is a difficult Donald Trump administration. Nevertheless, the Liberal government said it would stand up to the Trump administration, yet all we have seen is concession after concession, and we are getting nothing in return. It raises the fundamental question of tax fairness. If we are not going to tax the largest, most profitable digital corporations in the world, U.S. tech giants that make hundreds of billions of dollars every year, then what message does that send to ordinary Canadians who the Prime Minister asked to tighten their belts? What message does it send to the 50,000 federal civil servants who are getting pink slips.”
“When parties tell Canadians something during an election, Canadians expect them to be true to it when they are in government. The Liberals are failing that test.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague brought up the last election. I do not recall the Liberals telling Canadians in the last election that if they were elected, they would cave to Donald Trump and remove the digital services tax. Frankly, the Liberals told Canadians they would have an elbows-up approach and take a firm stance with Donald Trump. I do not recall the Liberals telling Canadians that they would get rid of the underused housing tax, which is a measure that is starting to work in this country; house prices are starting to come down. I do not recall the Liberals telling Canadians that they were going to hurt veterans by overcharging them for long-term care. They did not say those things. There is a fundamental question of credibility raised by my hon. colleague.”
“In her words, “using retroactive legislation to correct administrative errors is both inappropriate and unfair and undermines confidence in government decision-making”. She continues: Ultimately, it is clear to the Veteran community that Bill C-15 [changes] are meant solely to correct an error made by the Department and to deny [veterans] compensation for the overcharge. VAC already faces growing reputational backlash over the manner in which it communicates with Canada’s Veterans, their families and Survivors. I fear this retroactivity measure, if enacted, will only increase the deep distrust....”
“To protect democratic governance, the rule of law and Canada's constitutional order, division 5 of part 5 should be removed from Bill C-15 entirely. Fifth, clauses 373 to 375 of Bill C-15 would retroactively redefine “province” to exclude the territories in the veterans health care regulations as it relates to accommodation and meals payment by veterans in long-term care. In short, this would allow Veterans Affairs Canada to legitimize its past overcharges to veterans and nullify ongoing litigation aimed at securing reimbursement for affected veterans. Canada's Veterans Ombud, retired Colonel Nishika Jardine, has written to the Minister of Veteran Affairs asking that these provisions be removed from the bill.”
“They argue that even with the deal cut with the Conservatives, this approach is too broad and is less transparent than existing sandbox frameworks in other jurisdictions. The NDP maintains that these clauses cannot be fixed through backroom deals between the Liberals and Conservatives. Indeed, the government still has not publicly justified why such extraordinary powers are necessary. Measures of this magnitude should not be buried in a 600-page omnibus budget bill, which Liberals themselves, in opposition, said they would not bring in. Once in government, it is a different story. If the Liberals believe these powers are essential, they should introduce stand-alone legislation that can be fully studied and debated transparently.”
“This legislation would give ministers the extraordinary power to exempt specific people and corporations from federal laws and regulations. These exemptions could override labour standards, health and safety rules, environmental protections, indigenous rights and more. Even with the limited guardrails, the scope of potential exemptions remains incredibly expansive. This undermines the separation of powers by allowing the executive to override laws passed by this Parliament without full transparency or accountability. These clauses do not streamline regulation, as has been claimed. Rather, they erode the rule of law and create a two-tier system where laws passed by Parliament can be suspended arbitrarily. Legal experts and civil liberties advocates maintain that this is not true regulatory sandboxing, as is claimed.”
“The result is a policy retreat that gives up hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, abandons an important tax fairness measure aimed at the ultrawealthy and ignores the constructive proposals put forward by workers and their unions who were ready to help improve the system rather than dismantle it. Fourth, Bill C-15 contains a serious threat to Canada's democratic foundations. Division 5 of part 5 contains clauses that would grant federal ministers sweeping Henry VIII-style powers to temporarily exempt any individual corporation, individual, partnership, association or organization from the application of almost every federal law and regulation. Although the Liberals made a deal to accept Conservative amendments at committee to add some limited guardrails to these provisions, the core issue remains.”
“Eliminating the tax would cost $135 million over five years in lost revenue. Walking away from this revenue is a political choice, one that benefits the wealthiest in Canada, while the Liberal government eliminates tens of thousands of family-sustaining jobs and slashes services Canadians rely on because it claims to have a revenue problem. What makes this decision even more troubling is that unions in the aviation and boating sectors have proposed practical solutions to address the potential industry impacts of this measure, not a full repeal of the luxury tax. Instead of listening to workers and refining the policy, though, the Liberals are listening to the ultrawealthy in this country and seeking to scrap it altogether.”
“Third, while working-class Canadians are told by the government to make sacrifices, the government is proposing to repeal the luxury tax on private jets and yachts. The contrast could not be more glaring: austerity for working people, and tax breaks for those at the very top. It is also another total liberal backflip. In budget 2021, the Liberals argued that “Those who can afford to buy luxury goods can afford to pay a bit more”, especially at a time when ordinary Canadians were making sacrifices to keep our economy afloat post-COVID. (1625) To New Democrats, that logic still holds, yet the Liberals are now abandoning the luxury tax on private jets and yachts entirely. Their justification is that the luxury tax costs more to administer than it brings in, but their own 2025 budget contradicts this claim.”
“I guess the development industry has gotten to them. The PBO estimates the underused housing tax would raise $693 million over five years. Repealing it means we would be walking away from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that could be used to support truly affordable non-market housing, municipal infrastructure or other public priorities. It would also remove an important policy lever designed to discourage vacant foreign-investor-held properties at a time when Canadians are struggling with some of the worst housing affordability challenges in our country's history. This would encourage premises to stay vacant when renters are desperately in need of spaces to call home.”
“The result is that the Liberals are rewarding the biggest foreign tech corporations while eliminating tens of thousands of family-sustaining jobs and slashing services that Canadians rely on. New Democrats say that is the wrong way to go. Second, the budget would repeal the underused housing tax during a housing crisis, which is a truly baffling decision. When this measure was first introduced, the Liberals described it as “a national, tax-based measure targeting the unproductive use of domestic housing that is owned by non-resident, non-Canadians”, arguing that it would ensure foreign owners who use Canada as a place to passively store wealth in housing “pay their fair share”. Again, it was the Liberals who said that, yet in this budget, the Liberals today wish to eliminate this measure entirely.”
“They are the words of the Liberal government. When the Trump administration objected, the Liberals pledged to abandon this measure immediately. The digital services tax was specifically designed to ensure that the largest U.S. tech giants, companies like those led by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, contribute fairly to the Canadian economy with the profits they make here from Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated it would raise $7.2 billion over five years, revenue that could have supported public services, infrastructure and programs Canadians need and rely on. Instead, the Liberals caved to Donald Trump, walked away from billions in revenue and gave up a tool meant to level the playing field for Canadian businesses, all without negotiating a single benefit for Canada in return.”
“New Democrats believe much more can and should be done to build a stronger, more prosperous and independent Canada that works for all Canadians. Accordingly, we proposed a number of amendments and changes to the budget to meet this objective. Today I will highlight those at report stage that relate to sections of the budget that we argue should be deleted. First, the Liberals' decision to repeal the digital services tax would hand a major victory to U.S. tech giants at the direct expense of Canadian taxpayers and an even greater victory to Donald Trump. When the Liberals announced this measure in budget 2021, they described it as essential “to ensure that corporations in all sectors, including digital corporations, pay their fair share of tax on that money they earn by doing business in Canada.” Those are not my words.”
“moved: Motions Nos. 78 to 82 Motion No. 78 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 373. Motion No. 79 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 374. Motion No. 80 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 375. Motion No. 81 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 597. Motion No. 82 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 598. [ English ] He said: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing multiple overlapping crises, from difficulties finding affordable housing and buying groceries to feed their families, to a climate emergency that threatens our very planet. The budget was an opportunity to meet this moment. Unfortunately, in New Democrats' view, it has failed. In fact, it would actually reverse many measures the Liberals themselves told Canadians were essential just months ago.”
“moved: Motions Nos. 48 to 54 Motion No. 48 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 203. Motion No. 49 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 204. Motion No. 50 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 205. Motion No. 51 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 206. Motion No. 52 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 207. Motion No. 53 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 208. Motion No. 54 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 209.”
“40 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 173. Motion No. 41 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 174. Motion No. 42 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 175. Motion No. 43 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 176.”
“27 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 152. Motion No. 28 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 153. Motion No. 29 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 154. Motion No. 30 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 155. Motion No. 31 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 156. Motion No. 32 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 157. Motion No. 33 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 158. Motion No. 34 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 167. Motion No. 35 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 168. Motion No. 36 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 169. Motion No. 37 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 170. Motion No. 38 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 171. Motion No. 39 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 172. Motion No.”
“Motion No. 14 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 139. Motion No. 15 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 140. Motion No. 16 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 141. Motion No. 17 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 142. Motion No. 18 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 143. Motion No. 19 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 144. Motion No. 20 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 145. Motion No. 21 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 146. Motion No. 22 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 147. Motion No. 23 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 148. Motion No. 24 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 149. Motion No. 25 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 150. Motion No. 26 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 151. Motion No.”
“moved: Motions Nos. 1 to 43 Motion No. 1 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 126. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 127. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 128. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 129. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 130. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 131. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 132. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 133. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 134. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 135. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 136. Motion No. 12 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 137. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 138.”
“Your humanity and professionalism in the face of trauma remind us of the quiet heroism you display in our communities every single day. We thank the many people of Tumbler Ridge and across the region who have rushed to offer support for one another in this heartbreaking moment. In times like these, the strength of a community is truly revealed. In the face of such senseless tragedy and pain, we feel anger, confusion and despair. We ask ourselves how such violence can happen in our communities in this country. These questions matter, and they deserve honest, thoughtful consideration. There will be a time to answer them, but that time is not today. Today is a day when we cherish the victims and care for their families. Today is a day when we collectively grieve, comfort and hold each other just a little more tightly.”
“We know that no words can fill the void, but we hope that you feel the support of a nation that is behind you today, tomorrow and for all the challenging days ahead. [ English ] We remember all of the victims not as numbers in a headline but as human beings whose lives were rich and meaningful. The light they brought into this world and the potential they carried can never be replaced and will never be forgotten. To the injured, we send our deepest thoughts of healing and strength. To the students, friends and teachers who suffered this assault, we are there for you. We express our profound gratitude to the educators who first faced this assault, the first responders who courageously rushed to the scene as it unfolded and to all the health care workers who are caring for the injured.”
“Mr. Speaker, we solemnly gather today in the shadow of a heartbreaking tragedy that has shaken our country. Our nation is in mourning. Yesterday in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, nine innocent lives were senselessly taken and 25 people were injured in a horrific mass shooting. This violence unfolded at a school, a place meant to nurture and protect our children, deepening the shock and sorrow felt by all Canadians. Loved ones have been stolen, families have been shattered, and a small community will be changed forever. In a place where everyone knows one another, where neighbours are more like extended family, a loss like this reverberates through every home, every workplace and every gathering. [ Translation ] To the families who are mourning: We grieve with you, we stand behind you and we hold you in our hearts.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently urged the global community to stand up to superpower intimidation and called on middle powers to stand together to resist it. The United States has imposed an illegal blockade on Cuba for decades, crippling its economy and causing mass suffering to the Cuban people. Now Donald Trump is cutting off fuel, risking a humanitarian disaster. Will the Prime Minister stay true to his words in Davos, uphold independent Canadian foreign policy and support Cuba in the face of aggressive U.S. imperialism?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing an unprecedented threat to our sovereignty from Donald Trump and his administration. This is the most serious external danger for our country in decades, but we also face challenges to Canada's unity from within. Actions and words that sow division, spread hatred and foment violence are scourges that undermine and damage society. This week we marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a sombre commemoration of the genocide that took the lives of six million Jews and damaged the lives of millions more. Today is the national day of action against Islamophobia and remembrance of the Québec City mosque attack that killed and injured 25 Muslims at prayer. Together, these profound memorials remind us of the deadly effects of racism and the need to confront it, and defeat it, every day.”
“He justified this aggression by referencing Greenland's Arctic proximity, mineral reserves and inadequate defence capacity. These actions and words have direct application to Canada. They follow repeated and continuing threats made to Canada since Donald Trump became President. They are occurring on a daily basis right up to this moment. There is a wide consensus among observers, policy experts and stakeholders from across the political spectrum in Canada, from Jason Kenney to Bob Rae, that our country is vulnerable as a result. It is vital that members of Parliament be afforded an opportunity to speak to these important and urgent matters, which profoundly affect our sovereignty, security and place in the world. I ask that this emergency debate be approved and conducted forthwith tonight.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to request an emergency debate on the recent deeply concerning actions and statements by the Trump administration that have grave implications for the sovereignty and security of Canada. On January 3, President Trump ordered American forces to disregard international law and core principles of national sovereignty by attacking Venezuela, a UN member state. This aggression was followed by President Trump's announcement of a Donroe doctrine, considering the entire western Hemisphere to be within the sole hegemonic control of the United States. On January 18, President Trump expressed his intent to seize Greenland, a territory of Denmark, another UN member state and, importantly, a NATO member.”