Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to a response on this very issue by Mario Lévesque, who is the chief executive of the Quebec-based Utica Resources. He said that the rationale for exporting natural gas from Quebec is “crystal clear” and would generate “tens of billions in royalties and taxes” for Ottawa. He went on to say, “Quebec has enormous quantities of natural gas (about 20% of Canada's total recoverable gas), enough to replace all Russian imports into Germany for 20 to 40 years.” I did not have time in my speech to get into all the opportunities that Canada has lost, which would have benefited Canada and our allies.

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years, the NDP-Liberal government creates so many questions for Canadians. Canadians question the charade of a 12-month price freeze that retailers have imposed on producers, which will only see major price increases later. This was done just so the Prime Minister can put this problem off until after the next election. Canadians want to know how these suppliers absorb the increase in the carbon tax applied at every step of the food value chain. How do producers absorb the costs of higher interest rates and un-thought-through label and inspection charges imposed by the CFIA? Why is the government allowing a price ceiling to be imposed by retailers on suppliers, which are forced to absorb these costs? Why not instead remove or reduce the costs? The Prime Minister is all hat and no cattle; he is not worth the cost. Canadians want to know, and Canadians want the Prime Minister to go.

Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that I can top the member from Prince Albert on, but one of them is the fact that I have been to Ukraine three times. I think he referenced in his speech that he has been there once. Twenty-five per cent of the world's topsoil is in Ukraine, so I agree with all the comments that he made. When he talks about partnership with Ukraine, could he elaborate on where those synergies especially lie? My own perspective, which I will share more about tomorrow, would be exactly in our agricultural backgrounds.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address you, allow me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I present a petition on behalf of Canadians across the country who are very concerned with the loss of the freedom of choice in health care, and who are becoming increasingly alarmed by the legislation and statutory changes that were embedded, and buried, quite frankly, in Bill C-47, the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1. Canadians are competent and able to make their own health decisions without state interference. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon this Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the charter of health freedom, which was drafted for the Natural Health Products Protection Association on September 4, 2008.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's raising grocery costs. Let us put some things on the record here: The day after the photo op with the five retailers, the retailers decreed to their suppliers, starting with the largest one and the second ones following suit, that they would accept no price increases from their suppliers for the next 12 months. The PBO's analysis of the carbon tax is not specific around food inflation. It is a general analysis. Food production is energy intensive. If this hon. colleague were to convince his government partners to put a profits tax that would take the entire retail profit into the form of a tax into government coffers, that would lower the cost of groceries from a $25 set to $24, which is 4%. With carbon tax being applied to the farmer, to the trucker and to every step of the process, with retailers saying they will not absorb it and there are no price increases, who should pay that carbon tax? Is it the farmer, the supplier to the farmer, the trucker or the distributor?

Madam Speaker, I share with my neighbour and friend concern about the impact of the cost of groceries on Canadians. Rather than an excess profit tax on retailers, if we were to wipe out the profit entirely of the retailers for the moment, it would take the price of a bag of groceries from $25 down to $24. Is that sufficiently low for Canadian consumers if that is the only solution being proposed or, if that is not low enough for Canadians, what other solutions would he acknowledge? Higher interest rates are impacting the food value chain and the carbon tax is impacting the food chain. What other solutions would he have?

Madam Speaker, I note that my hon. colleague across the way spent much of his speech talking about measures that the government is introducing to address other government measures that have raised the cost of living for so many Canadians. I applaud the efforts to outline the mitigation efforts, but today is about a Conservative motion to eliminate the carbon tax, which is one of the drivers of the increased costs that Canadians are suffering from. We have heard much about greenhouse gas targets. Let us go to the environment for a second. The current government has never met one greenhouse gas target it has set. We have also heard a lot about hurricanes and fires and the challenges that Canadians are facing from our environment. My question for my hon. colleague is twofold: As a buried premise to that issue, what would the carbon tax have to be to stop hurricanes and wildfires? If the government had met its greenhouse gas emissions targets, would that have stopped those hurricanes and those fires that Canadians are suffering from?

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to sit on the foreign affairs and international development committee. I did listen to the testimony about the blockade of the Lachin corridor, and I am following the developments with the invasion now by Azerbaijan into Nagorno-Karabakh. So, to hear members across the way equate the suffering of Canadians, which no doubt they have inflicted, as a dismissive tool, where they have no respect for the institutions of the House, is very concerning. I am going to ask the member, as he dismissed my colleague's motion and as he spoke: Was it his intent to equate the suffering that Canadians are having right now on the basis of this government's policies with those fleeing for this lives from Nagorno-Karabakh?

Madam Speaker, I share with hon. colleague a heart for many matters around Canada's place in the world and international development assistance. In light of the humanitarian crisis right now, and the people from Nagorno-Karabakh fleeing, what specifically could Canada do today to apply international pressure? The member referenced the meetings going on in Brussels. What specifically could Canada do?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a fairly narrowly focused question regarding the leadership of the port authorities. What is the thought process behind the ministerial appointment of a chair as opposed to having it be more locally governed? That seems to add a layer of process. Timing and delays are ostensibly what we are trying to address here. Are there some service standards around the timing of ministerial appointments? What is the basic reason for that change away from local authorities?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the way for his advocacy of Great Lakes governance and fishery issues. I support him and join him on those issues. On today's speech, his colleague previously chastised me for asking a question on an issue that was not relevant to the bill, specifically, the movement or the authority of the minister to appoint chairs of the port authorities. Would my hon. colleague across the way agree that members of the House, particularly if they are speaking in favour of government legislation, should familiarize themselves with it, because, for the record, that is part of the bill?

With regard to all correspondence and documents received by the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office from the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GFLC), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Global Affairs Canada, since January 1, 2021, concerning the GFLC or the topic of Great Lakes fisheries: what are the details of each, including the (i) date it was received, (ii) recipient, (iii) sender, (iv) type of document, (v) title, (vi) subject matter, (vii) summary of content, (viii) file number?

Mr. Speaker, on the farm there is an expression: When it rains, it pours. While the weather at home is dry right now, farmers are experiencing a metaphorical rainstorm as a result of this government’s continued indifference toward fiscal responsibility. This storm consists of labour shortages; ever-rising interest rates as a result of inflation, which is a result of government deficits; fertilizer tariffs; a lack of homegrown fertilizer, but not from this chamber; and not one but two carbon taxes. Instead of driving winds onto our fields, this storm is driving food prices up to record levels from coast to coast to coast. The entire food value chain has been impacted, from fuel to move our farm products, through to our input suppliers, retailers, and food packaging, which has seen dramatic cost increases. Canadian farmers provide us with food security in an insecure world. The least we can do is stop drowning them in a sea of government incompetence.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his speech. I noted that he articulated a number of conveniences and a number of combinations of duties that a member of Parliament can undertake through a hybrid setting. Would he acknowledge there are downsides and some risks to the traditions? Those traditions have come about for certain reasons. Would he acknowledge there is a diminishment of accountability with a hybrid system?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, and tonight I bring them in person to the debate on Motion No. 26. I want to begin by asking a question: What is the role of Parliament? It is a rhetorical question for sure, but it has a clear answer: It is to serve Canadians, and that concern is at the heart of the matter being debated tonight. The Liberal-NDP coalition has unilaterally pressed for making hybrid Parliament, a temporary model of Parliament, into a permanent model. Such a dramatic change to a long-held procedure cannot and should not be implemented without clear consensus from all recognized parties within this chamber. On May 5, the World Health Organization formally declared the COVID-19 pandemic emergency to be over. The governing coalition cannot hide behind a past crisis to avoid accountability and transparency, because ultimately that is a by-product. I hope that is not the intention, but that is a by-product behind this procedural change. Instead of helping Canadians who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table, the government is actively working to avoid facing the Canadian people. Both accountability and engagement suffer in a hybrid Parliament. We have seen the core constitutional principle of responsible government, which is accountability to Parliament, weaken under the current hybrid system. I do not think anyone is challenging that. In this session of Parliament alone, House administration decided to cancel dozens of committee meetings due to a lack of resources for virtual participation. That fact alone should give my colleagues across the aisle pause. The importance of committee work cannot be overstated. It is at committee where drafted legislation is reviewed, and at times it is there, after all, that corruption and mismanagement are uncovered. Here are some examples. It is at the finance committee that the extent of the implications of another deficit budget are examined and highlighted. It is where amendments are tabled, debated and hopefully passed to improve the lives of Canadians, though unfortunately not this year. At the fisheries and oceans committee, which I attended this morning, the bungling of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' handling of the bilateral Great Lakes Fishery Commission file has united both houses of the U.S. Congress and all four accredited parties of this chamber in calling for a change in how the commission is managed. This failure has caused our American partners to walk away from the board table and risk the $8-billion fishery industry through the return of an invasive species, the sea lamprey, which devastated the Great Lakes in the 1950s and actually led to the original creation of the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. Earlier this evening, I attended an agriculture and agrifood industry committee where the four parties representative of this chamber reviewed Bill C-280 for my colleague from York—Simcoe, a bill to bring about some protections for fresh vegetable and fruit growers in case of bankruptcy of their buyers. Committee work is important, then, for advancing legislation and for government accountability, yet through the mechanics of a hybrid Parliament, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been able to duck and weave their way around facing questions from His Majesty's loyal opposition. This defies a founding tenet of our Westminster parliamentary system, in which the role of the opposition is to hold the government to account. There are technical glitches. The ministers avoid standing in their place in this chamber or at committee, choosing instead to surround themselves with screens in their offices right here on the Hill to avoid accountability when a poor grasp of a file is on full display. Is this acceptable? As parliamentarians, is it not our duty to serve our constituents to the best of our abilities? How can we do that if the government enshrines opportunities to avoid accountability? I do not deny that by almost every quantifiable metric, productivity and accountability are higher when we are working in person, but to quote General Patton, “Always do everything you ask of those you command.” This is not what the Minister of Procurement demonstrated as the minister was directing our federal workers back to work in the office. How is it just to deny a provision to federal workers while granting the same privilege to politicians? This is a textbook example of “Do what I say, not what I do.” Beyond televised acts of accountability, there are innumerable interactions that help our constituents, advance public policy and generally contribute to the building of constructive relationships among colleagues, both within our caucuses and across party lines. Stifling these small but consequential interactions through a hybrid system is simply flawed. I am sure I do not need to explain the many ways that constituents' problems can be solved with a quick word to a minister while the bells ring for a vote, or the important information that stakeholders draw to our attention when they visit us personally in our offices, or how a casual word with a colleague bumped into in the hallway helps to build the trust needed later to be confident that a future agreement struck at committee will be honoured. This has been mentioned several times this evening. These are just some of the examples of inter-personal dynamics that a hybrid Parliament prevents and discourages. Again, it must be asked how Canadians are best served by their parliamentarians. Is it through increasing the personal convenience of members of the House or is it instead through encouraging maximum transparency and accountability, part of which is through ensuring that both official languages in Canada are given equal weight? Conservatives have a long and proud history in building and supporting a bilingual Parliament. I do not speak French, but I am learning French with Duolingo. That is as far as I can get right now, which is why it is all the more alarming to hear from the International Association of Conference Interpreters, Canada region, and its president, Linda Ballantyne, who said that a hybrid Parliament has meant that “English has predominated and French has been snuffed out.” In part, this is due to a skyrocketing injury rate among staff interpreters. We have gone from a single disabling injury before the pandemic to 90 incidents. With a dwindling pool of interpreters, we cannot tolerate the harm done to these crucial women and men in the functioning of our democracy. It is for these reasons that Conservatives put forward a common-sense recommendation to have the House of Commons proceedings return entirely to in-person while maintaining the voting application. Considering that 97% of chamber interventions are now made in person, this recommendation would have led to little change to the nature of House debates, yet such a change would free up a badly needed translation service while also reducing some workplace risks that interpreters have faced. To reiterate an earlier point, far too many committee meetings have been cut short or outright cancelled due to a lack of resources, particularly the presence of interpreters to ensure our meetings are conducted bilingually. By cancelling the important work done at committees, Canadians are deprived of one avenue of making their voices heard, especially when it comes to holding this government or any government to account. Regrettably, truncated committee work has formed just one portion of a broader pattern of hybrid proceedings eroding government accountability to Parliament. Finding an effective way of combatting the pandemic and ensuring that parliaments continued to function the world over was a global concern, yet perpetuating the solutions found during the pandemic to the post-pandemic era seems to be a problem unique to the Canadian federal government. According to Andy Williamson, an Inter-Parliamentary Union researcher, some of the digital and remote working practices at foreign legislatures “will have been temporary as they are no longer felt necessary”. Indeed, he advised that just 46% of legislatures will retain remote functionality while “in some cases this might only be for use in exceptional circumstances.” To answer a question heckled across earlier, even within Canada, no provincial or territorial legislature currently has a full-fledged hybrid system. Succinctly, no other comparable legislature has rushed headlong into a permanent embrace of full-fledged hybrid proceedings or, if it is being entertained, it is with eyes wide open to the potential downsides. Despite the advances of technology and the rise of the Internet, some problems are best solved the old-fashioned way. Sometimes precedent and procedure are in place because they work. It is with a reckless disregard for the health and functioning of Parliament that the governing coalition has pressed for the permanent status of a hybrid system. I must ask again. What is the role of Parliament? Is it to serve the interests of Canadians or the convenience of its members?

Madam Speaker, what I see in the Conservative offer is respect from the Conservative Party for the long-standing tradition of compromise to get a consensus for the standing rules of the chamber. That is what I see from the members of the Conservative Party. In that very vein, I was listening when the member for Winnipeg North was speaking. At 10:04 he was referring to something and saying that something was virtually impossible. He went on to explain that he was also willing to consider other changes in the Standing Orders if they were mutually agreed upon. Would the member entertain, at some further point, that after 10 p.m., no puns would be allowed in this chamber? I do believe that saying something is virtually impossible when we are talking about virtual Parliament is a pun.

Madam Speaker, to the member's first question, why would the House leader act as if he had a majority government and not have to work toward a consensus? Quite frankly, in this minority Parliament, I believe that at times the government is acting like it is has a majority. A prime example of that is what we are debating tonight being pushed through. Do they not feel the need to work toward a consensus? I would direct that to our NDP colleagues across the aisle as they are supporting the government on many measures that seem to not be in the best interests of Canadians. To the second point by the hon. member as to who is being hurt the most, I referenced in my speech that it is Canadians in general due to the accountability Parliament has to them. I also focused on our interpreter friends who we need for accountability, bilingualism and the future of this country.

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has respected the long-standing traditions of the House. We have even seen in this session of Parliament the government filibustered its own legislation at committee on Bill C-21. I am not in a position to respond to that. Our track record as a party demonstrates the fact that we respect the traditions of the House and work at compromise. We have worked with the 100 and some-odd years of our Westminster parliamentary tradition, which has served us so well. I advocate using that going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the hon. member's comments. It is a bit tangential to the bill tonight, but I noticed that he said that he has no legions to honour our armed forces in his riding. I want to extend an invitation. I just took a look at my last November 11 schedule. There are eleven in my riding. I was able to attend three of them and had surrogates for the other eight. I would invite my hon. friend to come my way and help me honour our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the ports that are close to our export markets. There are five ports in Canada, namely Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Saint John, Halifax and Montreal, that are licensed to take containers in. Recently, a number of us in Ontario toured a port in Picton where the owners have applied to be licensed to receive containers because it is closest to the city of Toronto, which is the largest market for our incoming containers. The owners have asked for no federal money. All they need is a licence. They are willing to pay for any CBSA costs required to clear containers, yet they are unable to achieve a licence. Bringing containers in closer to the city before moving from ship to rail reduces emissions and reduces transportation costs. Would my colleague not agree that this would be a logical, environmentally sound reason to offer a sixth port closest to our biggest market for incoming containers?

Mr. Speaker, the government's policies are akin to death by a thousand taxes as Canadians watch their life savings bleed away. Gas prices are draining their bank accounts, as Liberal carbon tax 1 adds 41¢ per litre and Liberal carbon tax 2 adds another 17¢ per litre. However, do not forget that, just like adding salt to this open wound, the government's GST is a tax on a tax on a tax. This combination will add a whopping 61¢ to the price per litre of gas for Canadians. I ask this again: When will the minister get the facts and stop the tax?

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-284, put forward by my colleague from Humber River—Black Creek. The question before us today is fundamentally about ensuring that Canadians receive a coordinated response regarding their health care needs, particularly eye care. The proposed national eye care framework intends to promote information sharing and knowledge sharing between the federal and provincial governments in relation to eye care disease prevention and treatment, all the while ensuring that both levels of government respect their roles within our national health care system. To quote the bill directly, a key component intends to “promote research and improve data collection on eye disease prevention and treatment”. Doing so would enable eye care health providers a centralized resource to access the status of their own patient base and make sure that they share their expertise across the country, all the while ensuring that only the best and newest technologies are used going forward. According to the Canadian Council of the Blind, due to an increase in surgery wait times caused by the lockdowns during the pandemic, there has been a $1.3-billion increase in the cost of vision health over the past two years. All of this is compounded by the fact that 75% of vision loss cases in Canada can be prevented if patients are diagnosed early and have access to treatment. Furthermore, 70% of existing vision impairment in Canada is estimated to be correctable with prescription glasses. This proposal from my colleague is not only very commendable, but is being put forward at a very timely moment. A national framework would allow all provinces and the federal government, as well as health care practitioners and researchers, to sit down at one table and jointly develop and implement the measures necessary to make sure that all Canadians from coast to coast have access to eye care and the best practices available in a timely manner. Developing an effective framework is now more critical for the future of our children due to the prevalence of electronic devices. They release blue light, which can reach the retina, the inner lining of our eyes. Studies have shown that this light can damage cells in the retina, leading in some cases to early age-related macular degeneration, a unique concern of the modern age that is far more likely to impact our children. Children may not even know that their phones could be permanently damaging their eyes due to a lack of educational awareness. Some might resist getting an eye care exam due to the belief that glasses are not “cool”. I will admit that it was hard for me, some 10-plus years ago, to admit that I needed glasses. This is a pressing challenge, as a long list of diseases and health care problems can only be discovered through a regular eye examination. Many eye diseases do not have any preceding symptoms and cannot be treated without a professional assessment. The concern of vision loss in Canada requires a coordinated response, in both education and organization, between the provinces and the federal government, especially since there is a high percentage of seniors and school-aged children who have undiagnosed eye care issues. Very few children had their eyes tested during the pandemic, and as previously mentioned, many spend a great deal of time in front of a computer screen. Referring to Canada as a whole and for a better understanding of the gravity of the situation, here are some of the numbers. Over eight million Canadians, or one in five, have some form of eye disease. Some 1.2 million Canadians live with vision loss or blindness. It is estimated by the Canadian Council of the Blind that vision loss and blindness were likely associated with 1,292 deaths in Canada in 2019. These deaths would have occurred due to factors such as increased risk of falls for the elderly and isolation experienced by those with vision loss. Vision loss has a profound impact on our society and economy, costing an estimated $32.9 billion a year, $4.2 billion of which is attributed to reduced productivity in the workplace. Over half of the cost, $17.4 billion, is attributed to reduced quality of life, which is primarily due to a loss of independence, especially among seniors. Many of us have a personal connection to someone experiencing vision loss. My own mother struggles with age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, which is one of the top five causes of blindness. The other four are cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma and uncorrected refractive errors. Of these, all but two, AMD and glaucoma, can be prevented through proper care if caught at an early stage, or treated with modern tools such as laser eye surgery and/or prescription glasses. While glaucoma has no present cure, there are treatment options that, if begun early enough, can prevent an individual’s loss of vision. Even in the case of AMD, a healthy lifestyle and regular eye exams can help delay the loss of vision as one grows older. Also, new recent accredited medical devices provide the hope to even reverse AMD, at least temporarily. In the case of cataracts, we have been able to treat this condition, I am told, as far back as the time of ancient Egypt. There should be no excuse in the modern world to fail to provide Canadians with the knowledge about what treatments they can access in our provincial health care systems. Losing one's vision increases mental, financial and social hardships on an individual. It can lead to a loss of mobility and an inability to live independently, to drive, to read or to participate in physical activity. It can result in a loss of social interaction or even lead to social isolation, which can often lead to depression and other mental illnesses. Through being proactive and taking preventative measures now, we can not only save individuals and families from a great deal of grief, but also help maintain the solvency of our health care system by helping provinces avoid spending even greater resources down the road in both treatment time and costs. Through proper education and awareness campaigns, Canadians can potentially save themselves from great heartache and financial costs by reducing smoking, having a healthy diet, getting regular eye exams and being informed of family genetics. It must be stressed, however, that a health care strategy and delivery remain in provincial jurisdiction. The intent behind this national framework is for the federal government to serve as a centralized communication hub between eye health care providers in different provinces and federal regulators, allowing them to share their expertise and knowledge with each other. The requirement of regular reporting should also spur faster responses from Health Canada in reviewing and approving new technologies for the benefit of all. This program must be a team effort led by professionals, in conjunction with the provinces, with the federal government keeping its involvement in proper scope, namely participating in this national framework. As long as these concerns are respected and decisions on strategies and spending priorities remain within provincial jurisdiction, as stipulated in the Canada Health Act, I can support this bill and look forward to doing so. By passing Bill C-284, not only can we help millions of Canadians struggling with vision loss, but we can also be proactive and reduce the number of children who could face vision loss in the future. Eye care is but one part of our comprehensive health care strategy in Canada. In my remaining time, I wish to speak more personally. At some point, I believe we will need a larger discussion on how health care is funded and how accountability in that funding is measured. Both levels of government provide dollars to health care, and it is clear that, while partially federally funded, health care is delivered provincially. The topic of health care funding and delivery comes up often when I hold round tables and town halls in Chatham-Kent—Leamington, where constituents often blame one or the other or both levels of government for the inadequacies in the system they experience. I am reminded of Saturday mornings two decades ago in my own household. During the week, we had four daughters, but on Saturday mornings, when it came time to take out the garbage, we had five: Alyssa, Carina, Brenna, Kiana and “Not Me”. It was always Not Me's turn to take out the garbage. Health care accountability often reminds me of those Saturday morning discussions when people point at two levels of government and both levels of government point at each other. Former provincial treasurer Darcy McKeough, who is in his nineties and still lives in my riding, mused in a biography that the level of government that does the spending should do the taxing so as to be held accountable. That will be an interesting discussion one day, but it is not for today. Today, I encourage all members of this House to support this legislation put before us by my hon. colleague.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister likes the carbon tax so much that he created a second one. Carbon tax 1 is already inflating the price of groceries. It is going to cost a family of four more than $1,000 more in this coming year. Carbon tax 2 is only going to make that worse. Food bank use is already at record highs with one in five families skipping meals. Now a family farm will face up to $150,000 more in taxes by the time this carbon tax is through. When will the Prime Minister get the facts and stop the tax?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and the parliamentary secretary have stated numerous times that the majority of Canadians support the ban of hundreds of models that were previously unrestricted firearms, yet when the current government conducted consultations with 133,000 Canadians, 77% of those very Canadians stated that no further restrictions were required. Upon which data does the government rely when it makes the statement that the majority of Canadians support these additional bans?

Mr. Speaker, in the response to my previous question, the member stated that the government had consulted with many hunting clubs and gun aficionados. I believe those were the terms he used. There are six hunting clubs in my own riding. I personally am not a gun aficionado, but I did take my PAL and my RPAL before becoming elected, in order to understand this industry. What advice did the government hear from those consultations? It is apparently different from what I am hearing, so what did the gun clubs reveal to the government?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place today and speak to Bill C-280, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, deemed trust, perishable fruits and vegetables. I am pleased to second this bill introduced by my colleague from York—Simcoe, in June of this past year, to support the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill S-227, establishing a national food day. During that speech, I took the opportunity to outline four factors that influence how much structure a particular food commodity gets and its efficient marketing between producers and buyers. The factors were the perishability of the product, the complexity of its biology or technology, the ratio of buyers and sellers, and the international setting into which that product is marketed or traded. Today, I want to focus on one particular sector and one particular factor. It is well known that fresh fruits and vegetables are highly perishable with a limited shelf life. I believe it is important for us to protect our farmers during the bankruptcy of a buyer. Unfortunately, current existing laws do not take this into account. The perishability of the product for sale is at the heart of the justification for this legislation. This legislation aims to resolve this concern by establishing a deemed trust for fresh produce sellers, ensuring they have priority access to an insolvent buyer’s assets related to the sale of fresh product. It is important for us to note that the legislation also comes at no cost to the federal government. The big banks will likely be opposed to this legislation, and I will come back to this point later. The need for a financial protection mechanism has been a major focus of the sector for several years and has been included among many recommendations by stakeholders. A deemed trust mechanism is needed to address gaps in market stability, trade and food security. It is crucial that we help ensure Canadians continue to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Growing, harvesting, packing and marketing fruits and vegetables comes with risks and costs that are unique to the production of perishable goods and returns on these investments are delayed until payment is collected, which is usually long after the product has been consumed by Canadians or has spoiled due to delayed payment. Bill C-280 establishes an important tool to ensure that growers receive payment for their products, even in the event of a buyer bankruptcy. That means when produce has arrived at its destination, even if the buyer is unwilling to pay, the farmer will still get paid at least partially. Unlike in other buyer-seller relationships with perishable food, a farmer is not able to find and ship to another seller to make up for the lost sale. It should be noted that in addition to providing healthy food to Canadians, the fresh produce supply chain supports 249,000 jobs in Canada. It is important that we continue to support these jobs and workforce in our country. The introduction of a financial protection mechanism in Canada would also open the door to the reinstatement of preferential treatment under the U.S.'s Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act, or PACA for short, for Canadians selling produce into the United States. This preferential treatment had been in place prior to 2014 when it was rescinded by the U.S. due to a lack of reciprocal protection in Canada for U.S. sellers. PACA was established in the U.S. at the request of the fruit and vegetable industry to promote fair trade within the industry. Since it was rescinded in 2014, several organizations representing parts of the Canadian agricultural sector have been lobbying consistently for an amendment to Canada’s laws so that the U.S. would revisit Canada’s preferential status. The key issue that led to Canada’s preferential treatment being rescinded was protection in the case of insolvency for U.S. sellers, which has been difficult for Canada to implement since agricultural concerns are a shared responsibility between provincial legislatures and the federal government. Before 2014, if bankruptcy or insolvency in the supply chain resulted in Canadian producers not getting paid, to start the dispute resolution process with preferential treatment under PACA would only cost the Canadian company $100. This dispute process was helpful and affordable to Canadian farmers because the traditional method of repossessing shipments would not work, as I said earlier, due to the high perishability of the product in question. Without preferential access, Canadian companies trying to recover unpaid bills must post double the value of what they are trying to recover as a bond to make the claim. For an example, a small producer who is owed $50,000 would have to post $100,000 in cash to make a claim, effectively removing $150,000 from their cash flow or operating line for up to a year. Many cannot afford this and would simply walk away, losing what is rightfully owed to them, putting Canadian businesses at a steep disadvantage. Canada did not choose to leave this agreement. Instead, we had our preferential status revoked in 2014 because U.S. legislators felt that their American suppliers to Canada were not adequately protected. Canadian companies are now treated under PACA the same as any other foreign licence. In 2011, a bilateral regulatory co-operation council established by both the U.S. and Canada and created in Canada was created to address regulatory incompatibility between the U.S. and Canada that could be hampering trade. The issue of this inadequate trust protection was one of 29 issues identified. It has been eight years since our Canadian fruits and vegetable farmers had preferential treatment under PACA, and it is time we change that. This bill offers the financial protection needed for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers to protect and support Canadian produce growers. Bill C-280 would pave the way for a reciprocal arrangement that would support Canadian businesses selling to our largest trading partner. Obviously, that is the U.S. Our farmers need a larger market to sell perishable produce. In my area, the greenhouse industry exports more than 75% of their production across the border to the U.S. and they need to have peace of mind, when they ship their products, that they will be getting paid. It is important to understand that Bill C-280 would not require the government to offset or backstop losses incurred by farmers in the event a buyer could not meet its financial obligations. The legislation being proposed would create a deemed trust, which would cover accounts receivable, cash and inventory of the buyer stemming from the sale of produce on short-term transactions with payment terms not exceeding 30 days. Essentially, if a Canadian company sold produce to a U.S. buyer, who then resold it but did not pay the Canadian company, the trust would provide the mechanism to recover cash or accounts receivable for what was sold. I am very proud to support local farmers in my riding and farmers across Canada by supporting this bill to give them the peace of mind they need. In particular, in southwestern Ontario there is a large greenhouse sector and a vibrant fresh fruit and vegetable sector. A recent bankruptcy of a vegetable marketing enterprise in southwestern Ontario only further supports the need for this legislation. The Minister of Agriculture has stated to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that this legislation is not necessary because there have been negligible losses due to bankruptcy. I am sure that the farm that suffered a $1-million loss very recently because of the marketing company bankruptcy would very much disagree with that statement, and I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle would not bow to pressure from the big banks and support this bill. The recommendation for a financial protection mechanism is not a new idea. It has been proposed repeatedly by stakeholders for several years. It has been long enough. It is time for us to take these recommendations and turn them into action. We need to show farmers that we support their efforts, their time and their resources and acknowledge the financial uncertainty it takes to produce perishable goods for our country. Let us stand with our farmers and protect them so they may continue to produce these very essential needs. I am proud to second this bill, speak to this initiative brought forward by my colleague and champion the cause for fresh fruit and vegetable producers. I hope that my colleagues around this room will also support this initiative for our farmers.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, and today the voice, hopefully, of many Canadians, to this chamber. I want to begin by thanking Senator Black for bringing forward this bill to acknowledge a food day in Canada. He comes from the other place, and I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, for shepherding it through this place. I also want to thank him for some delicious craft beer that resides in my fridge, as he recognized that the Leamington Flyers prevailed over his St. Marys Lincolns in the western conference finals of the junior B hockey league. I also want to acknowledge that last night the Stratford Warriors, also from his riding, tied the series for the Sutherland Cup at 3-3; he and I will continue discussions on that matter later. However, today is about food and the important place that food has in our lives, both for our physical needs and also for our social needs. It has such a major place as we celebrate with families, as we celebrate occasions and as we celebrate social events. Today, I want to spend most of my time talking about the physical aspect of how food nourishes us. As previous members have acknowledged, many of us have access to local food, and that is great here in Canada, but the reality is that most of the food that we consume as Canadians comes to us through one of two complex food value chains: It is either food that we purchase at the grocery store, through the retail value chain, or it is through the food service aspect. After a number of us have spoken here to this bill, we will go to the lobbies and enjoy some food prepared here through the chamber. As we celebrate weddings and other social events, we have the food service industry serving us there through our hospitality venues, as well as through our hospitals. That is the other complex food value chain that often supplies us with food. I am a farmer, and on our farm we have produced many vegetable crops and grain crops. However, I have spent much of my life also involved with the transfer of raw products from our farm to the next step, that second step, as it goes from farmers to food manufacturers or food processors, and then on to retailers, distribution centres or food service companies. Several generations ago, most people understood the food value chain. What I really like about this bill is that it focuses on our food value chain and it gives us an opportunity to talk about it, so that we all collectively understand where our food comes from. In this chamber, we hear at times debate around supply management, where we talk about open markets or contracts or the spot market or informal alliances. In the general public, I do not think it is that well understood. Why does agriculture not just get together and have one simple way of transferring food or the value of raw product to the next step? Obviously, it is very simple to understand at the local markets or the roadside markets. In my home riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, we are blessed with many of them throughout the summer, and with our greenhouse industry, we often have access through many months of the year. However, as I said earlier, most of the food comes to us through a complex web of interrelationships, and that is where I have spent some time off the farm. I will speak a bit to that. I am a proud Conservative. I sit on this side of the chamber, for now. However, I have also spent 20 years or more collectively bargaining. I am very proud of that, representing producers and their relationships up the value chain. How can I do that? I very much firmly believe in the market mechanism as the most efficient mechanism for transferring value of goods and services, but markets work only when there is a balance of power in the marketplace. Different mechanisms, different structures and at times different regulations are required to provide that balance of power. What I have noticed over my time in the food industry is that there are four factors that actually determine the amount of structure and the style of relationship between producers, farmers and the next step up, be it food manufacturers or processors. Let us begin with them. The first one is the perishability of the product we are talking about. If we were to talk about the price of a glass of milk, or a tomato, which I have produced, or a bushel of grain, and if we were to sit down across the desk to determine the value and not agree, we might want to come back in two or three weeks' time and talk about the value of those products again. That glass of milk is going to have some problems two weeks later, if it is not properly cared for. The tomato might hang in there and have some value, but it would certainly be reduced. For the bushel of grain, be it wheat, corn, soybeans or canola, if stored properly, we can talk about it in six months, and it would be fine. Therefore, perishability determines the dynamic or the power we have to talk about it. Even with different products, we can talk about beef versus dairy. Both are products that come from bovine species, but they have totally different marketing aspects when it comes to perishability. A second factor is the complexity of the biology or the complexity of the technology. We can take a dairy herd as an example. A dairy herd takes years to build up to a productive asset, as does an orchard or a vineyard. They are not things one plants in spring and harvests that fall, immediately; it takes time. Therefore, if there are errors, mistakes or marketing challenges, that can really mess with that operation for years. My farm, Lycoland Farms, is an annual crop producer, so we get a new chance every spring, and we are at the point where we do a fair bit of double cropping, so often we are able to plant two crops a year. That dynamic, the complexity of the biology, determines how much structure and regulation might be required in transferring value. A third factor is the balance of buyers and sellers, and we have talked a lot about that in this House recently. How many buyers are there for how many sellers? Is it a monopoly or an oligopoly buying, or are there a number of options I can sell to as a producer? I think of different instances here. The grain markets are becoming more concentrated, but the reality is that I have several elevators I could transfer my corn or soybeans to, and I am not bound to take it to one if we disagree on the local basis levels. I look at our greenhouse industry, a very complex and highly technical industry, and there is a large absence of marketing structures. As they specialize more, they are starting to move toward contracts, but the reality is that in that industry, several years ago, there were over 60 marketing agencies willing to transfer the value of greenhouse product to the retailers, to the market. That has shrunk down somewhat, but there are a number of options. That balance of buyers and sellers, monopolies and oligopolies, plays into how much structure a market needs to function effectively. Last, there is the international scene. How is agriculture treated in other countries? Canada is a trading nation, so we cannot eat all the wheat we produce or all the pork we produce, and our orange juice production and our coffee production suck. We need to trade, and how other countries treat agriculture is also extremely important in our relationship. Those four factors, over time, play into how an industry transfers value, and this is largely between the primary producers one step up in the value chain. These factors are not static. Innovation, changes in technology and changes in how other countries interfere with or support their agriculture become very important. I am reminded of 2008, when the grain markets rose significantly. That actually led to the Arab Spring. When the average consumption of a country's population drops below 1,800 calories per citizen, often civil unrest follows, so countries around the world are interested in their agriculture and their food supply. Food sovereignty is important to every nation in the world, and that plays out in many different ways. In the few seconds I have left, I just want to touch on two points. First of all, there is a myth that it is field-to-fork that brings the food to our plate. I, as a primary farmer, have so many suppliers. I have relationships with input suppliers, seed suppliers and farm machinery suppliers, so our food value chain extends before the farmers. I do not want to leave anyone with the wrong impression. In conclusion, the legacy of Anita Stewart from Perth—Wellington is to be honoured, and that is a point of pride for our agriculture communities and for our whole food value system. I am honoured to address that today.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention, and I want to compliment him on both the rapidity and the simplicity of his speech. Because I do not understand the French language well enough, I also want to compliment our interpreter services for providing a very simple way for me to understand. I actually have a two-part question for the member. First of all, given the plainness he used so that I was able to understand, I would expect the member would be able to support our Conservative initiatives, when we form government, for plain-language laws, which would reduce a lot of bureaucratic language. Second, I was a bit confused by the member's constant points about removing duplicity in terms of having two departments looking at different things. Would he then want 10 departments or 13 departments looking after the various aspects of provincial law, or would it be better to have just one federal aspect?

Mr. Speaker, given the results of the vote, I guess this is a more valuable speaking slot now. It is my honour to rise to bring the voices of Chatham—Kent—Leamington and, on the issue of Bill C-47 today, the voices of all Canadians to this chamber on the budget implementation act. Perhaps the single most important task performed each year by this House is the debate and the passing of the allocation of federal funds, or more accurately and specifically I should say it is the spending of taxpayer dollars. It is our solemn obligation to responsibly steward the Canadian economy, a responsibility abdicated by the government. Therefore, it falls to my colleagues and I, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, to oppose and protest the adoption of the proposed budget. I know it is a shock. The legislation would continue the government's war on work. The raising of taxes would punish the hard work of Canadians by taking an ever greater portion of their hard-earned paycheques away from them, which, in conjunction of the inflationary spending of the government, has seen the cost of living dramatically rise. Today, one in five Canadians are skipping meals, and over a quarter of food banks have seen their use doubled from historical norms. To further insult the hard work of Canadians, the grocery rebate contained within the legislation would not even cover half of the inflationary costs of groceries purchased by the average family of four, not that expanding the rebate is the solution. One cannot tax and spend one's way out an inflationary cycle. It is due to the actions of the government that Canadians are struggling, yet its ill conceived answer to the problem of runaway spending is to raise taxes. Is it not the height of irony to give back to Canadians' money that was ripped away from them by the tax increases? Is it not further insulting to pretend these proposed rebates would solve the rising cost of living, which the government's spending has partially created? These rebates would not return to Canadians the money taken from them, let alone cover the rising cost of living, which has already driven many struggling Canadians over the edge, nor would it address the underlying drivers of this inflation, namely the spending itself. There is a well known adage that you have to spend money to make money. It is straightforward and easy to understand. However, left unspoken in that simple phrase is the understanding that one needs to invest money wisely and to make a profit, yet while the government loves to spend the hard earned paycheques of Canadians, it does not know how to invest. The government, at the behest of the Prime Minister, over his tenure, has burdened Canadians with more debt than every single one of his predecessors combined. If members want to look at an example of failure to invest properly, they can just look at the track record of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Despite all that spending, there is no plan in place to balance the budget or control the inflationary deficits, which have driven up the cost of goods and, now, the interest Canadians must pay. Current projections of the government itself predict nothing but deficits far into the future. The national debt is likely to reach $1.22 trillion this year. Breaking that down into something Canadians can easily understand, that is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. The cost of paying the interest on Canada's debt has nearly doubled since 2021 to a projected cost of $43.9 billion. Again, despite all that spending, Canadians are worse off today than ever. The dream of home ownership has all but died for young Canadians, as nine in 10 believe they will never own a home. The minimum down payment on the average home has more than doubled across Canada under the government. The average cost of a mortgage has gone from $1,400 to more than $3,100. In 2015, the cost to rent a one-bedroom apartment was, on average, $973. Today it is $1,760. Prior to the Prime Minister taking office, the average Canadian only needed to spend 39% of their paycheque to make monthly payments on their house. Today, that number has risen to 62%. By every objective measurement, things are more expensive, and Canadians are taking home less. Despite that fact, the proposed budget would only continue down the path of more spending while taking more and more from hard-working Canadians. Returning to the issue of home ownership, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has stated that more than three and a half million new homes must be constructed before affordability can be restored. Conservatives demanded that the government include a provision in the budget to remove government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. However, as with every other common-sense proposal, the government turned a deaf ear to the plight of Canadians. The government has even ignored its own promises and commitments. The Minister of Finance promised in this chamber one year ago that the government was “absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced....This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” Here we are a year later, and the Prime Minister has crossed that red line. I have three commercial harbours in my riding. People in Chatham-Kent—Leamington understand that an anchor is not supposed to float. It is supposed to hold and remain fast, not float within a year of being uttered. It begs this question. What in this budget will be like that anchor, and we will be standing here a year from now describing that? What is going to float away over the next 12 months despite there being ample room to cut back on unnecessary spending? Despite the pandemic being virtually over, government spending is still up $120 billion compared to prepandemic levels. In 2019, our program spending was $323 billion. The spending for this year by the government is projected to be $447 billion. Once again, it must be said that the government spends, it does not invest, all the while raising taxes as its unsustainable expenses continue to restrict and deny the well-being and future opportunities to our children and grandchildren. From the work at the agricultural committee, we have heard from expert witnesses how food insecurity is a growing crisis. The typical disposal income spending for food in Canada has historically been around 9% of disposable income. It is now upward, closer to 14%. Testifying at committee, Chief Byron Louis expressed how first nations communities had been devastated by the rising cost of food. Even first nations communities that are comparatively close to the Canada-U.S. border are having trouble, with many having to resort to food banks just to feed their families. It has even been more challenging for those who live in remote or northern regions. As costs continue to rise unabated, these communities will only have a harder time of it. It is an abdication of duty to allow this to continue. The solution is simple. Reckless spending that the government refuses to address, let alone reduce, must stop. How can we continue to allow our children to go hungry in one of the wealthiest nations in the globe? Can we call ourselves a truly democratic nation if we let the most vulnerable go hungry? Where is the accountability? Simply ignoring the financial problems crippling Canadians will not make them go away. As a farmer, I cannot begin to express how frustrating it is to hear that our children are going hungry because their parents cannot afford groceries. We produce more than enough food in Canada to feed Canada. It is the actions of government, the current government, that have seen the proliferation of food insecurity across our great nation. It is abundantly clear that this food insecurity seen across Canada is the result of rising costs, not an inability of farmers or our food value system to provide. Instead, farmers are raising costs as a result of more taxes, the impact of the carbon tax on transportation and the rampant inflation affecting every input. Canadians are being priced out of their own grocery stores. It is a travesty and it must not be allowed to happen. It cannot be stressed enough that Canadians are living in desperation, skipping meals, living in their parents' basements, unable to drive to work, falling into depression and even considering suicide because they cannot afford the bills imposed upon them over the past eight long years. This budget makes all those pressures, all those pains and all those costs even worse. This proposed budget cannot and should not be approved for the sake of every Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government often touts the fact that its federal debt is in not too bad of shape vis-à-vis other OECD countries or other G7 countries. The member is absolutely correct that when we take a total of our total sovereign and sub-sovereign debt, we are in trouble. I do not mean to sound apocalyptic, but I did start my adult career in the early eighties and I remember interest rates. As a result of spiralling inflation, they got out of control as a result of spending. I am concerned. That is why my speech was as it was. The member is absolutely correct on the combination of debt that Canadians face and, more important, what the results of that will be for our kids and grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, for a moment, I thought my hon. colleague from Hamilton Centre was calling for more competition. With that, I can agree, absolutely. Unregulated capitalism is not what we have and it is not what we are advocating. A market system works, and this my soap box and I wish I had more time. I will do 10 minutes on it at some point. A market system works when there is a balance of power across the negotiating table and across the marketplace table. I heard him call for more competition in some sectors, and I agree.

Madam Speaker, prior to being elected to this chamber I served with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. I had the opportunity to work in Pontiac with that organization, and I got to know some of the excellent farmers and rural folks in the member's riding. I am curious what reaction to the budget the member is seeing from her own agricultural constituents, as 6.8% of Canada's GDP comes from the ag sector. I noticed that she voted against Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption for farmers, as did most, but not all, of her colleagues, which I want to acknowledge. There is almost nothing in this budget for agriculture. What reaction is she getting in her riding from her agricultural constituents?

Madam Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of joining in the recognition of fishing legend, Bob Izumi, who hails from Chatham-Kent in southwestern Ontario. Bob recently received a rare honorary membership to the all-party parliamentary outdoor caucus in recognition of his outstanding work in promoting fishing, family activities and environmental stewardship. Bob is known across North America for hosting Canada's longest-running syndicated television series, Bob Izumi's Real Fishing Show, which ran for 38 years. It is also great to see Bob pay tribute to his father Joe, who, in addition to raising Bob, his sisters Lynn and Georgina, and brother Wayne, while working two or more jobs, also made time to teach community bowling, baseball and organize Canada's first-ever bass fishing tournament right here in Kent county. I thank Bob for representing his community and country with so much dignity and his ever-present smile.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his excellent speech. I do enjoy working with him on the foreign affairs committee. I know a great organization that is potentially going to benefit from his talents during his next time out. I have a question I want to ask. I had the opportunity to consult with my riding over the last two weeks. I had 13 meetings, and I heard much about the cost of inflation and how it was affecting families. In particular, I want to relate two comments I heard from the villages of Wheatley and Erieau. They have harbours, and they understand the concept of an anchor. A year ago, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance made a commitment that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was anchored to a solid fiscal anchor and would not rise. The folks in Wheatley and Erieau understand that anchors are not supposed to float, so my question to my hon. colleague is this. Next year, what will be the anchor in this year's budget?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, despite the Liberal Party, this House passed Bill C-234, which exempts farm fuels, grain drying and farm heating from the carbon tax. However, the carbon tax does not just apply to the farm. It applies to the entire food value chain, from the mining and manufacture of fertilizers to the delivery of farm inputs to the delivery of farm production to the packaging of farm inputs, farm production and groceries, at every step of the way. The result is that now a family of four is going to pay $1,100 more for their groceries in 2023. When is the costly coalition going to get the facts and stop the tax?

Madam Speaker, irrespective of the hour, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Before I go on, I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove. The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom. Members will hear me say that several times more. The bill returns to us from the Senate, where more than two dozen amendments were unanimously agreed to, and I will not get into the 26 versus 29. That should give us all a sense of the state of this piece of legislation. We want to thank our counterparts in the upper chamber for their efforts to improve this heavily flawed bill. Let us all go back for a moment to the beginning of Bill C-11. Its purpose was to update the 1991 Broadcasting Act, to bring equity and fairness into a new age of communication tools, and hopefully have a structure and adopt principles for new communication platforms that we have not even dreamed of yet. That was a goal we could all support. However, as is too often the wont of the government, it is the overreach of this bill that we must now focus on so that a problem that needed solving does not become a bigger problem than the one we started with. That brings us here today. The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom. One of the most important amendments involves the protection of user-generated content from regulation by the CRTC and focuses the scope of the bill toward professional, copyrighted music, music with a unique signifier number or videos that have been broadcast on mainstream media and then uploaded. Importantly, this amendment removes the clause that would add the criteria of direct or indirect revenue. Unfortunately, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already indicated that the government would not support any amendments that “impact the bill”. Here, my analysis would cause me to read “impact” as “improve”. It is disheartening to hear the minister reject impactful amendments that could be greatly beneficial to our Canadian content creators. These creators rightfully expect the government to implement responsible legislation that creates a safe and competitive environment for them to continue growing their brand and sharing their Canadian reality. What no Canadian creator, indeed no Canadian, expects is for their government to begin telling them what it means to be Canadian. Yet, by giving the CRTC the power to regulate Canadian Internet users and define what can be categorized as Canadian content, or CanCon, the government is instead restricting those Canadians who are on the forefront of Canadian digital content creation. Artists and creators who excel in their fields deserve nothing less than an equal playing field and the tools they need to succeed. It is the users of the content, not the government, who should determine how often it is viewed or the ease in which new viewers could find new material. In addition to fair compensation, they should also be able to share their stories through the medium of their choice, be it television, film, music, prose or, what we are talking about now tonight, online. The Liberal government does not trust Canadians with freedom. The government is sending the message to people that says they should not be trusted with the freedom to create and view the content of their choice online. It is continuing its “Ottawa knows best” approach of limiting individual freedoms by creating problems with user-generated content that do not exist. The government has had an opportunity here to adapt how it treats the arts, culture and media to suit modern realities and platforms. Instead, the Prime Minister has rejected every attempt to include safeguards in the bill that would protect the freedoms of Canadian Internet users to ensure that they have access to the content of their choice and not what the government decides to promote or de-promote. Again, the government does not trust Canadians with freedom. Another important amendment proposed by the Senate is the definition of CanCon itself. This amendment would make sure that the CRTC considers all factors like the producer of the content, the key creators of the content, furthering Canadian expression, whatever that means because it is not defined, the amount of collaboration among Canadian industry professionals and anything else brought into regulation before disqualifying content as CanCon. Again, as in the previously mentioned amendment, this amendment would certainly impact the bill, so the government rejected it. We must not lose sight of the fact that culture naturally grows and evolves over time. Canada has long-prided itself on being welcoming to the cultures of many different peoples. In fact, if one turns on television today, one may hear a CBC ad that says, “It's not how Canadian you are. It's who you are in Canada.” Yes, I watched the CBC Saturday night because the hockey game was on. Why then is the government putting forward legislation aiming to do just the opposite by determining how Canadian one's content is? What we absolutely do not support is online legislation that would affect what people can access on the Internet. Having freedom of speech and the ability to express oneself freely within the confines of the law is crucial—

Madam Speaker, and be heard, as the member aptly interjected. This includes those who upload content to social media platforms and other digital platforms. They expect to be just as visible as their neighbours, regardless of how Canadian the CRTC thinks their content is. Even with the amendments put forward by the Senate, Bill C-11 remains a misguided and deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is one that ironically does not reflect Canadian values and the realities of digital content creation. Canadians are rightly concerned about the infringement on their freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach that this bill, like Bill C-10 before it, could have on them, on the freedom of speech and on the freedom to be heard. The government does not trust Canadians with freedom. If ensuring citizens were accessing local content online was truly a pressing issue, would we not see other governments around the world enacting similar legislation? We have heard the criticism of comparing the bill to other authoritarian states, but when it comes to online censorship or the possibility of it, that is exactly where this potential legislation can go. These are not countries that we want to emulate. Initially, the government put forward, in clause 7, unprecedented power of the government over the CRTC. The Senate rejected this amendment and, fortunately, in the light of day, the government accepted that rejection. Many stakeholders were concerned about the amount of regulatory authority this would give the government over communications in Canada. It is difficult to imagine how the government could put forward legislation with so many unintended side effects and areas of ambiguity. It has led many to speculate that the so-called side effects were actually the true intention of the bill. I must admit, I do not blame them for entertaining such thoughts. The alternative seems to be that so little thought was put into a bill of such consequence that they did not realize the impact it would have on Canadian creators and Canadian internet users. We are seeing a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns about the way their government is handling their livelihoods and entertainment. Under Bill C-10, the attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and limit Canadians' free speech and free hearing was unacceptable, and it is still unacceptable in its current form under Bill C-11. The number of jobs created by content creators who have enough audience to monetize their channels, like YouTube, in Canada is estimated at about 28,000 full-time jobs. Instead of hindering this type of digital-first Canadian content creation, we should be supporting it. The best way to ensure Canadian content is allowed to thrive is by empowering our creators and not limiting them. We must not only support our Canadian artists but also pave the way for the next generations' success. We have an obligation to ensure that new bills do not hinder the creativity and the individuality of our creators so that innovation can be fostered. This country has a wealth of venues where inventive ideas emerge daily, and it is in our best interests to help our creators export their talent around the world. As Conservatives, we will always support Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by protecting their rights and freedoms. Bill C-11 remains an unacceptable attack on those freedoms, as it provides both the CRTC and the government with unprecedented control over online content. This is a misguided piece of legislation that will see the potential end of free speech and free hearing for Canadians online. Why does this government not trust Canadians with freedom?

Madam Speaker, on the platforms, it is my understanding that it is the level of use by the users that determines the prioritization and not the platforms. The algorithms are driven by those who are using and viewing. It is by the users. It is the freedom to choose what one sees. That is what is driving the algorithms behind it, and that is exactly what we want to see. We want to see that freedom of the users of the content: the hearers. That is what this legislation would be impacting. It is not the freedom of speech as much as the users.

Madam Speaker, in my maiden speech to the House in 2019 or 2020, I referenced my four daughters and said I hoped they would have no glass ceiling above them. The Internet provides the opportunity, if that is their chosen field, not to put any ceiling above them. They have the full freedom. I am surrounded by very capable female colleagues who did not require the quota to bring them here. The freedom the Internet provides gives the expression of those opportunities. It does not hinder racialized Canadians, Inuit and first nations. It provides the platform that is accessible to all. A quota does not help that. It will not help my daughters; they will make it on their own.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for possibly leading me not astray but down the right path. This bill would create the possibilities, the potential and the temptation for governments to overreach. That is the danger. It is a danger where we do not want to see governments of any stripe go. No one can call Margaret Atwood a Conservative. When she describes creeping totalitarianism, what is she referring to as a content creator?