Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the government just slapped Canadians with a 23% carbon tax increase on April 1. It did this while food banks are servicing a record number of hungry Canadians and farmers are struggling to keep up with crippling taxes. The government needs to pass Bill C-234 in its original form to remove the carbon tax on farmers and help bring down the cost of food for all Canadians. Conservatives have sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget. Common-sense Conservatives will not agree to support the budget unless Liberals axe the tax, build homes and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar of savings for every dollar of spending. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

With regard to the March 31, 2023 announcement by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry that the government secured legally binding commitments from Rogers and Vidéotron: (a) what is the current status of each commitment; (b) for each commitment that has been completed, on what date was the government notified of its completion; (c) for each commitment that has not yet been completed, by what date does the government expect it to be completed; and (d) for each of the job creation commitments included in the announcement, how many jobs have been created to date?

Madam Speaker, we honour the life of Saskatoon philanthropist, Les Dubé. Les and his wife Irene have donated millions of dollars in our community for health care, scholarships, education, research, poverty, homelessness and, most importantly, mental health. Les built his success from humble beginnings. He was the founding member of the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority and served on multiple boards and committees. He holds the Saskatchewan Order of Merit and the Order of Canada. In 2013, Les was awarded as the outstanding philanthropist of the year for North America. The Dubés were generous supporters of all four hospital foundations in Saskatoon and established a number of charitable foundations bearing their name. Les is survived by his wife Irene and three children. We thank him.

Madam Speaker, that was a passionate speech by the member. He spoke in particular about northern Canada, where maybe the resources are not the same as those Canadians enjoy in metro areas. He also brought up the Senate situation. I think we are seeing in the House of Commons these days that we are having issues with the Senate, in particular with Bill C-234, which we have brought back several times here, and the MAID legislation. This is a concern. As the member said, they are not elected. They are appointed. It has caused some strain on families, not only with the MAID legislation but also for the agriculture sectors with Bill C-234. I just wanted to point that out and have the member comment on the issues we are having with the Senate. It looks like we could have these issues for a number of years with the Senate, compared to the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, living has never been more expensive for Canadians. The temperatures in Saskatoon were below -30°C for 10 days straight in January, and now the bills are coming in from that cold spell. It is shocking how much the carbon tax is costing businesses. For one owner, 33% of their bill was carbon tax and GST on the carbon tax. That amounted to $1,127 for one month. For another, 35% of their bill was carbon tax. That amounted to $1,690 in one month. Now the Liberals plan to quadruple the tax with another increase coming on April 1. Common-sense Conservatives would build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and, more importantly, axe the tax.

Madam Speaker, in listening to the minister here this morning talk about water advisories, the previous Conservative government left eight and a half years ago, and there are still over 100 water advisories on first nations. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I have seen reserves burn down water treatment plants because the Liberal government has done little or nothing. She can talk about the previous Harper government, but the current government has done very little in the last eight and a half years. I would like her to comment on the situation. The other thing is that there needs to be education provided for people on reserve to operate these water treatment plants, which is part of the problem we have seen with the government over the last eight and a half years.

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are struggling to afford the basics. In fact, Canadians are heading to the food bank in record numbers. This Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. Kelly in my riding spends $6,300 a year in carbon tax on his farm. Now the Prime Minister wants to quadruple that. Will the Prime Minister simply axe this tax off Kelly's operation to make it more affordable for Canadians to feed their families?

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years of the Liberal government, Canadians by the millions are depending today on food banks. However, on Tuesday, the NDP-Liberal government released its mini-budget, adding another $20 billion in inflationary spending. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. When will the government cut the line of credit so that Canadians can afford to heat, eat and keep a roof over their heads?

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that Conservatives were the ones to successfully negotiate the current Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. A common-sense Conservative government would modernize the existing agreement without the expensive Liberal carbon tax. Ukraine does not need this woke agenda. The Prime Minister has added more debt than the previous 22 prime ministers combined. When will he put the chequebook away?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today and talk about Bill C-34, which is the Liberals' attempt at increasing security on foreign investments in this country. Before I get under way, I would like to announce that I am going to share my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Yellowhead. This is an important issue in the country, and it is an important bill, Bill C-34, that we are facing here today. We cannot simply allow authoritarian regimes whose values and goals are fundamentally opposed to ours here in Canada to control important infrastructure or resources in this country. We must protect Canada's national economic and security interests. However, after eight years in power and two years after the industry committee presented this report on the issue, the government is finally trying to take action on the file. I want to acknowledge the work done in the committee both on the initial study and on improving the legislation before us. I think further improvements definitely can be made, but I will get into that a little later. The world, as we know, is changing every day. Quite frankly, we all know this is kind of a dangerous time right now. National security needs to be top priority, even though the government has decided to take $1 billion out of the national defence fund at this time. It is unreal that the Liberals would even think of doing such a thing. Internationally, we have seen conflicts sprouting up almost every month. We have the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a perfect example of an authoritarian dictator willing to do whatever he wants to get whatever he wants. We look at the resources involved and ultimately how Russia will use violence to violate the sovereignty of its neighbour next door. Domestically, we are seeing what countries will do to increase their influence and control where they cannot simply invade. Russia and Beijing are actively interfering in our elections, which we know is a fact. Kenny Chiu, whom I sat with in the last Parliament, is not here, because of the interference from Beijing. Also, foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property and other assets. They are gathering data daily on our citizens and they are exploiting that data. Just today, on the front page of the national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, the headline reads “Huawei still filing patents tied to work done with Canadian universities after Ottawa's restrictions.” It goes on to say that “The Chinese tech company Huawei Technologies is still seeking patents for research it conducted in partnership with publicly funded universities in Canada, more than two years after Ottawa began restricting funding for academic collaborations with connections to foreign states considered national security risks”. Huawei has filed patent applications for research on 5G wireless; artificial intelligence, which has been brought up in the House in the last hour; semiconductors; and the optical communications done in collaboration with academics and investors at the University of Toronto. We have see it at Queen's University, the University of B.C., Western University and McMaster University. All those universities, they say, are fulfilling pre-existing contractual partnership agreements. However, let us make no mistake: All of the commercial rights to this property, which has been invented by Canadians and funded by Canadians, are now owned exclusively by Huawei. This is what we are talking about in Bill C-34. I have more to say on Huawei and what it has done in my province of Saskatchewan. I will come to that. The end goal, obviously, is to take over as much of Canada's economy as possible in order to make us beholden to foreign powers that have no interest at all in democracy, freedom and the rule of law. We can see this happening all over this country. We see Chinese state-owned enterprises buying up farms, fisheries, mines and other things. Even in my province of Saskatchewan, when I drive around, I will see signs in the ditch saying that if people want to sell land, they should call a certain 1-800 number. If they call that number, it could be a third party. Indirectly, what is happening is that somebody in Beijing or China is wanting to buy Saskatchewan farmland. Saskatchewan farmland, as we all know, has gone up considerably over a number of years because, in my province, we are proud of it. We want to feed the world. This is what we are seeing in this country in ditches everywhere. I mentioned Saskatchewan, and I have been to Manitoba, Alberta and elsewhere, and I know there are signs in ditches saying that that if people want to sell land, they should call a 1-800 number. When they do, they get a third party talking on behalf of probably China or other countries. We are in a situation where people need to be able to trust that their Parliament and their federal government are protecting them and their country. Unfortunately, this is another example of the Liberal government's doing something too late with Bill C-34. The bill would not go far enough to address the risks faced by all 40 million of us Canadians. Given recent events, it needs to be much stronger. I can recollect that in 2021, the industry committee studied the act and put out a report explaining how the act could be improved. Clearly, the government mostly ignored that report, because in Bill C-34, the government addressed only two of the nine recommendations that the committee put forward at that time. Let us fast-forward to this year at the industry committee, meeting once again. My Conservative colleagues were able to make some modifications to improve the bill and address some of the gaps, including important amendments that would ensure a more rigorous review process of investments and acquisitions by foreign state-owned enterprises. Those amendments were to lower the threshold for national security reviews of foreign purchases by state-owned enterprises, make it mandatory for the minister to conduct a national security review when that threshold is met and, finally, create an automatic national security review whenever a company has been convicted of corruption charges. These were important and necessary improvements to the bill. I am very glad that the committee saw the common sense of these amendments and adopted them. However, the legislation still would not go far enough. The NDP-Liberal government rejected amendments that would have further improved the legislation and properly and fully protected Canadians. One of the rejected amendments, one which I think is crucially important, would have modified the definition of a state-owned enterprise to cover companies or entities headquartered in an authoritarian state like China. I understand the potential concerns with such an amendment; the nationality of the company should not usually be sufficient to label it a state-owned enterprise. This is where I was going to get to Huawei and the reaction of the industry minister, a couple of years ago, in not making a decision on Huawei. I think it has cost my province of Saskatchewan $200 million. The province was invested into Huawei for 4G in the province of Saskatchewan. It was waiting for the minister of industry to make a decision on Huawei. It took him months. Finally, he made the decision, but the province of Saskatchewan was into Huawei for over $200 million, so it had to put on the brakes and then reinvent itself. This has cost Saskatchewan and others in this country millions of dollars. This is something that our allies in the Five Eyes alerted Canada about long before the minister made the change, and it has cost Canadians a lot of money. I just wanted to make those points. I am concerned about Huawei, as it is taking information from the five universities still today, when actually Huawei should have been out of this country long ago.

Mr. Speaker, what has been done is that the authority has been taken away from cabinet. It would rely on one minister. That minister could come from Quebec. That minister might come from who knows where in the country. Obviously that one minister might have a bias toward maybe his or her own riding or province. That is one reason we are a little upset with this. It has to go through cabinet. The more eyes that see this, the better. Only having one set of eyes looking at it is a major concern I see in Bill C-34.

Mr. Speaker, as shadow minister, the member has done a great job looking after Bill C-34. The Conservatives put through several amendments. We had a page filled with amendments, but only had three or four passed. A number of them failed because there was a Bloc and Liberal conspiracy against the Conservatives. With what has happened here recently, as we have seen with the fuel pumps and everything happening in the Maritimes, now we know why the Bloc has partnered with the Liberals on this bill. There is 3% of Canadians who are affected in the Maritimes with the energy and 97% are shut out, but now we see why the Bloc has joined the Liberals in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about Quebec; this is about everybody in the country. I know he represents Quebec, being a Bloc member, but I will give one example from my province of Saskatchewan. There have been $18 billion invested in the Jansen potash mine. It is the largest investment in the history of Saskatchewan. It is done by BHP Biliton out of Australia. It had the first phase, which is $12 billion, and it just announced another $6 billion. This is the kind of investment we need and can work with from this company from Australia, which will be headquartered eventually in Saskatoon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Mark Tennant. For over a quarter century, Tennant was the face of the University of Saskatchewan women's volleyball program. He coached the Huskies to three straight national titles in 1979, 1980 and 1981. He was named national coach of the year four times in his career. Mark Tennant's contribution to the sport of volleyball spanned over four decades as a player, coach, technical leader and international representative. He was inducted into numerous halls of fame. Tennant single-handedly changed the game, establishing Supervolley, one of Canada's largest and most prestigious open tournaments, which ran for over 20 years. Our deepest sympathies go to his wife Gail; their three children Darcy, Derek and Breanne; and grandson Wick.

With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), as of June 7, 2023: (a) what is the current backlog of air travel complaints, both in terms of the number of complaints and the number of months that new complaints are projected to wait before receiving a decision; (b) how many CTA employees are currently assigned to process air travel complaints; (c) what is the increase in the number of CTA employees assigned to work on air travel complaints between January 1 and June 7, 2023; and (d) what is the expected timeline for when the CTA backlog will be cleared to a point where new complaints receive a decision within (i) six months, (ii) three months, (iii) 30 days?

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of several constituents of mine from Saskatoon—Grasswood and surrounding area. They made a number of points and are concerned about the state of democracy right now in Bangladesh. Therefore, they call upon the House of Commons to take all possible measures to help Bangladesh restore its human rights and democracy and ensure a free, fair and credible next general election.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Liberal government, everything is fine. Why is it that one in five Canadians are visiting a food bank? Why is it that deficits continue to pile up? Why is it that students are being forced to choose between education and accommodation? Why is it we have more debt, more inflation, more taxes and higher costs? It is because the Liberal government has added over $60 billion in inflationary spending. There is more bad news. Not only do we have carbon tax 1, but carbon tax 2 is coming, which is going to cost Saskatchewan families over $2,800. Common-sense Conservatives understand the hardships caused by the Liberal government's failed policies. Canadians from coast to coast to coast cannot wait to boot this tax-and-spend government off to the sidelines.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure tonight to speak to Bill C-21. Even though I represent an urban riding, I can say there is a lot of interest in that bill. Saskatchewan firearms owners are respectful; they are law-abiding citizens and many feel that the bill is simply an infringement on their rights. When Bill C-21 came forward last fall, I was kind of hopeful it would include measures that would be tough on crime and crack down on illegal smuggled handguns, which are part of the 32% increase in violent crime since the current government took office eight years ago. First off, I want to thank the grassroots movement in this country, like hunters, sport shooters, indigenous groups and farmers, who really are concerned about their livelihood. They are concerned about their sport, their culture and, above all, their public safety for pushing back against the Liberal Party's agenda. Many amendments, as we know, came forward. Many were pushed aside by the government, as Conservatives on the public safety committee listened to the testimony and recognized the many flaws in Bill C-21. A major concern with the legislation, and we have heard it a lot tonight, is that it would target competitive sport shooters in such a way that it could lead to the demise of the sport. The legislation would effectively mean that those who use lawfully obtained handguns to participate in internationally recognized sport would no longer be able to do so. The bill would outlaw competitive sport shooting, except for individuals who are already training for the Olympics. The amendment that was put forward by our party would have allowed members of the International Practical Shooting Confederation to continue to participate in their sport, but it was voted down. I want to talk about my province of Saskatchewan, and I want to thank the leadership of the provincial government, because it is well ahead of the federal Liberals. Back in September 2021, the Province of Saskatchewan appointed its own chief firearms officer, proactively getting ahead of the Liberal government. Saskatchewan has several concerns with respect to Bill C-21, and the ability for the new legislation to be effectively implemented while supporting impacts on public safety. I consulted with Robert Freberg. Many members know Mr. Freberg. He is the chief firearms officer for Saskatchewan, and I think he is nationally recognized as the expert in this field. Many of the initiatives in the legislation before us would rely heavily on both law enforcement and the ability for chief firearms officers across Canada to issue prohibitions, revocations and refusals of licence, and to be the primary resource to investigate public safety concerns related to firearms. Mr. Freberg has told us that the Province of Saskatchewan has been so successful in this area, since the province has not only designated its own provincial chief firearms officer, but it has also established the provincial firearms office, which is currently supporting law enforcement efforts to deal with the illegal use and possession of firearms. This includes mental health; domestic abuse; criminal activities; and enhancing overall education, which is a big one, around safe storage and proper licensing. The Firearms Act clearly states that Canada should negotiate a federal contribution agreement with the provincial CFOs, which has not occurred since Saskatchewan and its neighbouring province to the west, Alberta, actually took over CFO positions back in 2021. The Province of Saskatchewan is currently funding 100% of the work currently being performed not only by Mr. Freberg, who is the chief firearms officer, but also by the entire office. It has also provided significant additional funding for the establishment of a new provincial firearms ballistics lab to assist with law enforcement on firearms involved in criminal investigations. This, I might add, is with no financial support, again, from the federal government. Currently, it can take two years for results for exhibits that have been submitted by police to the federal ballistics lab for testing. This actually occurred after the RCMP closed several provincial labs, including the one in Saskatchewan, which previously supported those important law enforcement needs and initiatives. How could Bill C-21 be successful if the agencies responsible for the overall implementation and enforcement are not adequately funded and are now being asked to do much more with much less? I would say my province has spent over $9 million and is waiting for even a dime from the federal government to help it out. Let us keep in mind that we started a chief firearms office nearly a year and a half ago, because Saskatchewan did not trust the federal government. Many of the announcements around the May 2020 order in council handgun ban and Bill C-21 have severely impacted the focus on the Canadian firearms program and its performance in the critical public safety investigations required, as they are now negatively impacting managing the fallout of excessive call volume from licensed firearms owners due to the hastily announced legislation that was put in place with absolutely no consultation or input from them. Many law-abiding firearms owners continue to experience lengthy delays, some actually over a year now, trying to simply renew or acquire a firearms licence. How can they stay in compliance or be properly licensed if they cannot even communicate with the Canadian firearms program due to the program now being fully inundated with call traffic? The current handgun freeze and subsequent inability for law-abiding firearms owners to acquire or even transfer a handgun has significantly impacted not only public safety but also the financial investment and loss in value that these individuals in my province are now experiencing. If an individual should become deceased or even experience a health or financial issue that creates a situation where they would like to initiate a legal transfer to another licensed individual, today, they simply cannot do that. This results in the individual having to surrender the restricted firearms to the police for destruction, or having to engage the extremely limited scope of services for a very specialized licensed dealer or exporter. Dealers can purchase, as we know. However, given that there is an extremely limited market for resale, they are unlikely ever to participate. There is no buyback program, as currently stated in the May 2020 OIC. Given that there would be no current provisions to ever grandfather the existing owners, as there previously were under the regulations in 12(6), which allowed for the transfer to still occur between licensed grandfathered individuals, there is a high likelihood that these current firearms could become diverted in some circumstances rather than staying registered and managed as they presently are.

Madam Speaker, most of these, if not all, are illegal firearms in northern Saskatchewan. We know that. A lot of the “tough on crime” that the Liberals have not done over the last eight years is now paying massive dividends in northern Saskatchewan, as the member talked about. We are in trouble in northern Saskatchewan for a very good reason. It is because they are not tough on crime. We have seen many people, day in, day out, go into court who should be sentenced and are not. They get out and do the same tactics they did a week before, and this is part of the problem we have right now in northern Saskatchewan.

Madam Speaker, let me talk about ghost guns after three hours in the House. The respected member for Kootenay—Columbia, who is a former RCMP officer of over 30 years, brought it up to the government over two and a half years ago. It did nothing at that time. Then the member for Kootenay—Columbia asked a very important question: Where is the education in this law? Where is the education? I have to thank the Saskatoon Wildlife Federation for all the great work it does. With this bill, the federal government has done nothing on the education process going forward on Bill C-21. It should be ashamed.

Madam Speaker, believe it or not, even though I am an urban MP, I get a lot of calls. In my province, people want to be outdoors. They want to shoot guns and sport shoot. I have to thank the Wildlife Federation that does a wonderful job in my community. The one thing I will say is that I am so proud of Bob Freberg and the Province of Saskatchewan. They are still owed $9 million by the federal government because it has not paid for the officer or the office.

Mr. Speaker, people in my home province of Saskatchewan are struggling more than ever to make ends meet, and the Prime Minister is oblivious. Canadians are feeling the pressure to keep the lights on and food on the table, while the government continues to raise taxes on gas, heat and food. The Prime Minister has squandered taxpayer money, taking lavish foreign holidays that most of us could never afford. His $80,000 gifted vacation from the Trudeau Foundation donors cost more than an annual salary for many families in this country. Taxpayers are on the hook for these foreign holidays, while most Canadians simply take modest holidays, such as camping out or visiting their grandparents. Canadians are facing tough times because of the government's irresponsible fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians are now desperate. Many are struggling to decide which bill to pay first. The government has driven up the cost of living, making everything more expensive. Vacations are simply out of the question for most Canadians, yet the Prime Minister spends enormous amounts in taxpayers' dollars taking luxurious foreign vacations. Here is a novel idea: Would the Prime Minister consider staying home to actually help Canadians?

Madam Speaker, two years ago, in June 2021, I sat with the member for Steveston—Richmond East right here. He was giving a passionate speech in the House of Commons, in which he talked about being targeted. That member is no longer here. In fact, he has come to committee a couple of times, talking about what he thought was Beijing interference. We do need an inquiry. We do need a registry. We have more than one MP who was here in 2021 and, quite frankly, is not here today. I can think of Alice Wong, Bob Saroya and Kenny Chiu. It is about democracy. Before the last election, the member from B.C. was standing right here, in the middle of June, talking about interference from Beijing. Does the member from British Columbia want to comment on this?

Mr. Speaker, even though public service spending has increased by 53%, we find ourselves in the grip of the biggest federal public service strike in history because of the Prime Minister's epic incompetence. Canadians are being denied the services they pay for and deserve. The solution, according a Liberal cabinet minister yesterday, was that they not apply for passports anymore. Can members believe that? When will the government get the job done and restore services for all Canadians?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and honour to rise in this place, even when it is time to speak on yet another poorly prepared Liberal budget, as I am here to do tonight. Budget day used to be the most exciting day of the year in the House of Commons, but it fell flat. It was ridiculous. The finance minister stood up, green dress, saying everything is fine in Canada. Well, this just in: It is not fine in Canada. To the contrary, this country is in massive trouble and a difficult economic position. Canadian families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, and businesses are struggling every day just to keep their doors open because of the carbon tax, which is one of the reasons I am hearing in my province of Saskatchewan. I will agree that 2022 was a year of high inflation, massive deficits, a rising cost of living and tax hikes, and 2023 looks like it will be much of the same. I remember that not a long time ago, the finance minister said we would have deficit inflation. The member for Carleton, in the House, for over two years, signalled there was going to be massive inflation. The member for Carleton was right. When we continue to spend and spend, as this government has done, we are going to get inflation trouble, and that is what happened in 2022. We are in an economic crisis that has impacted Canadians across regions and all age groups. As we have mentioned in the House a lot, one in five Canadians is skipping meals. The average rent in this country has nearly doubled in the last eight years. The down payment needed to buy a house has now doubled, and inflation continues to drive grocery prices higher and higher. For young Canadians, the dream of starting a family or even owning their own house is getting further and further out of reach. For many families, there is a growing reliance on food banks, and I see it in my city of Saskatoon. More and more families each month, unfortunately, arrive at the food bank looking for food to tide them over for a paycheque or at the end of the month. We have never seen the numbers so high in my city. Saskatchewan is the economic engine right now of this country, yet we have many families visiting the food bank in my city. It is really tough right now to put gas in vehicles or even sign kids up for sports. Many seniors living on fixed incomes are having to choose between filling the fridge and paying the rent. We had a constituency week two weeks ago. I have the largest number of seniors facilities in Saskatchewan. That is right: Saskatoon—Grasswood is number one in Saskatchewan for seniors facilities. I spent a lot of time visiting them over the two-week period, and everything is going up: food, rent and heat. In fact, at one facility, which I will not name, during the round table, seniors told me that rent was going up $15 a month. Last year, that facility did not raise the price of rent, but it had to raise it this year, in 2023, by $15. For many, that is a drive-through trip at Tim Hortons. However, these seniors were stressed out over the $15 extra they are going to be paying next month on their rent. That speaks volumes about what has happened in this country. We emerged from a financial crisis in 2007-08 with a stronger economy than any other country in the G7. Our economy was growing steadily because it was competitive. We were aggressively exploring international trade. We had a government focused on fiscal restraint. However, we have lost that. We have lost our competitiveness. Just today, a story in a newspaper in Saskatchewan said that Vital Metals has halted construction of rare earths at the University of Saskatchewan. That is the same facility where, about six weeks ago, the Prime Minister was gladly sharing photos. He was there at Vital Metals. Well, now it is shut down. This is the sort of economy we are losing not only in Saskatoon and Saskatchewan, but certainly across the country. What happened? What changed between 2015 and now that has led to the massive economic problems we see? Well, I think we can all point to 2015, when the Liberals came to power in October. Do we remember the early promise that they would just have small deficits that would be gone within three years? What has that turned out to be? It is massive deficits blown right out of the water. We are eight years into the Liberal government's reign, and it has added more debt to the books than any other prime minister in the history of this country for over 150-plus years. It has blown that out in eight short years. Fiscal restraint, as members know, has been thrown right out the window, has led to record levels of inflation and has certainly driven up interest rates. It was interesting listening to the finance minister as she was preparing for the budget, because a month before she made the announcement that everything would be fine and the Liberals would haul in their spending and control it, she was talking to the banks in the country. They all said she needed to reel in spending, so we were prepared for that. Wow, did Canadians get a surprise when she announced the budget that day in this House. What does the finance minister propose to do to fix the problems her government has created? Unfortunately, it is more of the same, as we found out the day the budget came out. This year, the minister proposed to tack on another $43 billion to the debt, with no path at all to balance the budget. When the Liberals came to Parliament as government in 2015, they said that after three years they would balance everything. However, eight years in and they have not even come close to balancing the budget. The finance minister also proposed to continue to raise taxes, including the carbon tax. By 2030, which is seven years away, the government's two carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gas. Diesel in this country is roughly about $1.80 and is going to be over two dollars again this summer. Then we will all sit here and bark about why food prices have gone up. Well, it is because of the transportation costs the government is imposing with its carbon tax. As we have seen from coast to coast, the carbon tax is adding to everyday expenses. What should we do? Well, any plan should focus on three pillars. On this side of the House, for the last eight years, we have talked about lowering taxes, tackling high inflation and removing the government gatekeepers that make it more difficult to get business done here in Canada. We have seen that. I just mentioned that Vital Metals is closing today in Saskatoon. We need to lower taxes. At a time when so many Canadians are already struggling to make ends meet, the obvious first step is to make sure they have more money in their pockets. Then they can pay down their debt and maybe enjoy a vacation, something the Prime Minister casually goes on every two or three months. Normal Canadians are cutting back on vacations. In a recent survey, we heard that six in 10 will not be taking a vacation this summer as it is simply too expensive. This year, a family of four is going to spend over $1,000 more on food. A family will also pay between $402 and $847 because of the carbon tax, even after the rebate. The government says that it will all be revenue-neutral, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer knows too well that in my home province of Saskatchewan it is not revenue-neutral. We are concerned in this country. We are concerned because of the out-of-control spending and the growing deficit we are seeing in this country of $1.22 trillion. I cannot add that up fast enough for every household. The average Canadian household share is now $81,000. How are we going to get this down? I think that is the biggest area of concern for the next Conservative government, because Canadians want to get the debt down and are looking forward to a new Conservative government to show them the way.

Madam Speaker, the Aga Khan's island is one. He has gone to Tofino when he should not have done that. He just went to Jamaica for $9,000 a night, which he should be paying back out of his own pocket. He has not admitted to that in the House. The Prime Minister, for the last week, should be paying $81,000 for his recent trip. He will not do it. It was a friend of the family for 50 years. That way, he does not have to pay for any rental on a $9,000—

Madam Speaker, yes, it is a big concern in western Canada with Air Canada. It seems to have pulled out. We only have two flights a day, hopefully, from Saskatoon to Toronto and from Vancouver to Saskatoon. It had many more. It is down to four flights for the Diefenbaker airport. That is all it does. We are concerned because Saskatchewan is the economic engine of this country right now. For the mining companies, like Cameco, NexGen and others, for the university, for the rare earths and for agriculture, everything I have talked about, we desperately need more flights in and out of Saskatoon. We are not getting that. It is the same for Regina. We talked about it as a caucus in February, but what we are seeing is that Air Canada is leaving western Canada, and Westjet is trying to fill the void.

Madam Speaker, we have lost our competitiveness in this country. It worries me. I am worried for vegetable farmers in the member's area, who are trying to get workers in to help out with planting and the harvest. We are about two to three weeks away from planting in my province of Saskatchewan. We are the breadbasket of the world right now, but the carbon tax is killing every farmyard in my province. Food prices are going up because of the carbon tax, and it will continue to go up and put tremendous stress on every food bank we have in this country.

Madam Speaker, I say good day to everyone. It is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to talk about Bill S-202, an act that would amend the Parliament of Canada Act and that is better known as the parliamentary visual artist laureate. This Senate bill proposes to establish a new officer of the Library of Parliament called the parliamentary visual artist laureate and to give that position a term of up to two years. This new officer would be tasked with creating works of art for Parliament and engaging with visual arts communities from coast to coast. The Parliamentary Budget Officer assumes that the overall cost of a visual artist laureate would be in the neighbourhood of $100,000. This is based on the cost of the established parliamentary poet laureate position we already have. My Conservative colleagues and I support the arts in this country, as well as the culture and diverse heritage of Canada. Through my work over the past eight years on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have had many opportunities to learn from Canadians and demonstrate that support. My colleagues on this side of the House and I, on the heritage committee, have heard many witnesses testify from the arts community who are struggling financially. We have made common sense suggestions to the government for legislation to support these artists in our country. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed by the lack of support by the Liberal government for online content creators; let us make no mistake, they are really artists themselves. Bill C-11 threatens some of these artists, and no amount of testimony or discussion has caused the government to even give this issue a second look. This is an avoidable mistake. Many artists came to committee to talk about the online streaming bill that gave them the opportunity to connect not only in their community and this country of Canada but worldwide. These are the same artists and creators who have made a name for themselves but are now being censored, and last night, the government moved closure on Bill C-11. The Senate looked over Bill C-11 for months and recommended 26 amendments. Even the Senate agreed that this was a huge issue in the red chamber. However, the government refused eight amendments that dealt with censorship. These are artists who may never have a chance to make $100,000 a year, but like this Senate bill, it is all about freedom of expression. It is interesting that Bill S-202 does not refer to it, because when another creative bill was being studied, it was all about limiting the freedom of expression. With regard to this legislation, Bill S-202, I will remain optimistic and open-minded. I will listen to members, who will no doubt deliver thoughtful remarks, and I will listen to all Canadians. However, I will remind everyone that it is Canadians who will bear the brunt of the cost of this bill, and I will listen closely to hear their thoughtful views. I regularly send information into my riding requesting feedback. I am never disappointed by the range of opinions and carefully considered comments we get back. I learn something every time we send out a mailer and interact with constituents. Canadians, as we all know, are very smart, and I trust them to make good decisions about how we spend their money here in Parliament. We will get the opportunity to hear from Canadians when this bill goes to committee. We will hear from witnesses and gather more information. For example, was there a demand for the creation of this position in the first place? What work is expected to be produced by the individual in this position? How would this individual be selected? Would the work produced reflect Canadian values we can be proud of? Are there any limitations on their work? Some of the questions we are talking about here today are about what we need to find out in committee. These are just a few important considerations. As we all know, Canada is rich in talent in every artistic field. I have been privileged to travel to every coast of this country, and I can say that Canadians are creating art every day in every way across this great country. My office in Saskatoon, in fact, is decorated with meaningful art pieces by talented Canadians, including my own wife, Ann. The late Bob Pitzel from Humboldt made a number of paintings that I have in Saskatoon and here in my Ottawa office, and I cherish them. Ann and I have supported artists for years by buying their treasures and helping non-profit organizations like Artists Against Hunger, which raises money for local charities in our city of Saskatoon. There is no shortage of creativity and talent in Canada. In fact, I had an opportunity to visit Stornoway just before Christmas. That is the residence of the Leader of the Opposition. On the wall, I was pleased to see a painting by the late Allen Sapp, an artist from Saskatchewan. It was a painting from his catalogue that I had tried to purchase for myself, but it was not available; then I saw it on the wall at Stornoway. I guess I cannot take that picture back home with me. Allen Sapp, who unfortunately passed away in 2015, was an indigenous artist; he really set the table in our province for art. In fact, in the city of North Battleford, there is a museum that all Canadians should go to. Allen Sapp was one of the finest painters that this country has ever seen. Could a collection of artists who are already creating art contribute their work in order to fulfill the goal of Bill S-202? I just throw that question out there. These are options that we might consider before creating a new exclusive post. This bill proposes mandating a visual artist laureate to promote arts here in Canada. Canadians have been doing this since the birth of this nation, some 150-plus years, without a mandate. Art is an amazing thing. Creativity does not need to be mandated. COVID was particularly difficult for artists in this country. It was difficult for everyone, but certainly in the area of the arts. Artists could not show their work, and it was very tough on them. We heard from them at heritage committee. This is a sector that I would like to hear from on the idea of a visual arts laureate. They would provide a level of understanding that should be heard. With the reckless spending and the runaway debt under the current government, it makes sense to hear from Canadians what they want. Do they feel this is value for money, or do they have other priorities for arts funding in this country? Is this the best way to support artists in Canada, and is it the best time to create new expenses? I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the other place, the senator from Manitoba, for this bill. I think we can all agree that members in the House support the arts, culture and diversity. There are many ways to support that priority in Canada. I would like to thank some of the artists from my city. There is the late Hugo Alvarado. Cam Forrester has a group in our city called Men Who Paint. It has several exhibitions. It is a fabulous group of artists in Saskatoon. It does tremendous work, and its members volunteer their time for workshops, which helps younger artists get involved. We have Cheryl Tuck Tallon. Ernie Scoles is indigenous, and he does so much in our city, like volunteering items for promotion at fundraising events. We also have Lorna Lamothe, Laurel Schenstead-Smith, Marian Phaneuf and I could go on. I thank members for their time on Bill S-202.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time tonight with the member for Sarnia—Lambton. It has been really interesting to sit here listening to the debate because I have sat on the heritage committee for years and went through all the testimony on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11. The only thing I agree on is that the former heritage minister knew nothing about Bill C-10 and that is why he was replaced. I would say the current heritage minister knows very little about Bill C-11, and he too should be replaced. This is an interesting conversation we are having here tonight. I say that because, when one sits in committee and hears testimony after testimony twice a week for four years, it is kind of interesting. It is true that this bill a dumpster. We have seen it since day one when the former heritage minister tried to explain it. It came back to the House early in June and then we shoved it off to the Senate, only to have the unnecessary election and the bill died. How serious were the Liberals on that? They had an election that did not have to be called if Bill C-10 were so important, but, no, they shoved it to the Senate, called an election that did not need to be called and the bill died. We had to start all over and two years later, here we are again on Bill C-11, and the Liberals are still arguing the same points as they did on Bill C-10. It is interesting. Now we are dealing with the Senate's proposal on this bill. I will say that the Senate, in my estimation, did a fairly good job on this. It worked hard on this. It spent weeks on Bill C-11. It did not like what we sent it, we being the House of Commons and the committee, so it spent weeks going over this. In fact, it had 26 amendments that it recommended the government look at and put in the bill. That speaks volumes. We never get that many amendments from the red chamber. Out of the 26 amendments, we understand the government took 18, but it did not take eight. For whatever reason, the government did not like eight amendments from the Senate, which I will get to in just a moment. The concern remains on all sides of the Senate. I know they are flipping each way over there, but they all agreed this bill is a disaster. In the Conservative caucus, we have talked about this since day one. We have been very vocal on this bill for very good reason. We are very concerned with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's involvement in Bill C-11. I am very concerned. I do not think it has the capability, in fact I will say that I know it does not have the capability, to really do what is necessary in Bill C-11. It is not just the Conservative caucus talking about its concerns with Bill C-11. We have heard it from industry experts. We have heard it from academics, content creators and digital platform users. Everybody who came to committee over the last number of years expressed the same concern. Former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies spoke twice in committee about his concerns with Bill C-10 and Bill C-11. Dr. Michael Geist has been the most vocal on this, and he should be because he is Canada research chair in Internet law. I think he is one of the foremost thinkers in the country when it comes to Internet regulation. He has written oodles of articles not only denouncing Bill C-10 but also, recently, Bill C-11. The government claims the platforms must pay their fair share. I have heard over and over today the government claiming that platforms must pay their fair share. This just in: They actually do. The government says it is long overdue. Platforms are among the biggest investors today in Canadian film and television production. There are all-time records in Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina and Vancouver. The business has never been so good. Why is that? It is because Americans are hiring Canadians to do their productions from Toronto, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg and Vancouver. I could go on and on about the tremendous support in this country for working, paying taxes and shooting documentaries. TV networks, such as CBC, CTV and Global, do not do documentaries anymore because they are too expensive. However, Netflix and Amazon do documentaries because there is skin in the game. They put well over $1 billion into this country's film and TV production, which is later shown either on streaming devices or sold to the traditional broadcasters. The Liberals say that we need to support the next generation of Canadian artists. However, Bill C-11 would hurt Canadian artists the most. The Senate was absolutely convinced on this issue. We were, too, on Bill C-11, as were many digital creators, who risk being harmed by the CRTC regulation. I heard the member for Nunavut the other day, and again a couple of moments ago, explaining that there is concern with this. The concern should be up north, where their voices have never been heard. CBC does not go up there. CTV would not go up there, and Global does not go up north to tell indigenous, Inuit stories. It is too expensive. However, here we have Netflix and Amazon giving us the stories of Canadian people. TV and film production is at its all-time high in this country. We were told in committee by the largest entertainment workers union, Unifor, that streamers are now the largest employer in this sector. No longer is it CTV, Global or CBC. It is the streamers that are the largest employer in the sector. We can see how it has grown. I am a 40-plus year veteran of television. I have seen the decline in television, but the gap has been filled by streamers and production houses from others that had to come into this country to put money on the table to produce some of the greatest innovation this country has ever seen. My fear now is that CanCon demands and higher regulatory costs would mean that many streaming services from around the world could block Canada. The biggest concern, and I have talked about this, is regulating user content. This was one of the eight Senate amendments rejected by the government. I pointed that out. It appears that the government wants to retain the power to regulate. Instead of listening to experts, the Liberals are catering to the needs of big telecom companies, which basically hold the monopoly, and they have for decades, over broadcasting in this country. One more time, I am going to talk about the CRTC because I am fearful of it today. The CRTC, as we have seen, is a body with little or no accountability. I would argue it is one of the least effective regulatory bodies in the whole country today. It is a body that can barely handle the responsibilities that it has. For starters, the CRTC has been totally ineffective at managing Canadian telecoms. We have the least competitive and most expensive telecommunication industry in the world. I blame the CRTC. Canadians today pay the highest prices for cell phones and Internet. Many, in fact, do not even have broadband in this country. Then there is that three-digit suicide prevention line, which this place unanimously voted for in December 2020. How easy would that be to put into action? The CRTC, in its wisdom, has taken a year and a half for a simple three-digit suicide prevention line. How can we expect the CRTC to address the problems of broadcasting when we already know it has no idea how to handle its responsibilities? The big issue with Bill C-11 is the CRTC and the Governor in Council. Canadians have woken up. I have gotten lots of emails in the last couple of days. I can share them during questions and comments. This is a bill that Canadians should be very fearful of.

Mr. Speaker, I did hear Gord Sinclair, and I thank the hon. member for bringing him up. Yes, through the sixties, seventies and eighties, when radio stations were forced to hit rates of 30% or 35% in Canadian content, there was a lot of Canadian talent that made a lot of people in the industry successful. We could go on for an hour naming the successful people that CanCon created. This was very much so in the radio days, but that is no more. In fact, the department does not know how much revenue Bill C-11 would bring in. It has no idea, but over a billion dollars has been put into this country by the big giants for production. I have talked about Toronto, Regina, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Calgary. These are tremendous production houses, which I fear would have closed years ago.

Mr. Speaker, did the member for Nunavut know the indigenous met with the minister and stormed out of the office, they were so upset over the regulations on Bill C-11, even Bill C-10? The indigenous, the Inuit and others are not happy with what has transpired. They do need their voice up north. If CBC was doing such a good job, we would probably not have needed APTN in this country. It is funny that APTN has taken over the voice of the indigenous people because the public broadcaster could not carry it. That has opened a window for those in Winnipeg and at APTN.

Mr. Speaker, these came in over the weekend, and this afternoon, I had an email from my constituent Bob that I will share. It has an interesting spin. He said that what is lost in this bill is that, while the government is forcing Facebook and all to pay for news, those same media of Global, CBC and CTV are taking photos from his Instagram and Facebook pages and using them without payment. There is an interesting one. The other email is a concern from a YouTuber. He is worried about the government overreach on Bill C-11.

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years, the dream of home ownership is disappearing under the Prime Minister's watch. Home ownership is becoming unattainable for many Canadians across this country today. House prices have doubled, and monthly mortgage costs are bleeding every bank account in this country. After eight years, because of the reckless government's spending, dreams are being shattered. Will the Prime Minister simply get out of the way so that the Conservatives can fix what he has broken?

Mr. Speaker, today we remember the life of Shelley Gregg. We say a loving farewell to a devoted wife, mother, grandmother and friend who cared so deeply for those around her. Shelley knew how much it meant to give back to her community. She was always stepping up to volunteer. She gave back in many ways, but it was the Choc'laCure fundraising initiative that stood out. Her incredible work over 15 years raised millions of dollars for the Saskatoon Cancer Centre to purchase equipment that helped shorten wait times. Shelley was a humble, fearless and inspiring leader. Her efforts and ideas have touched not just those who were fortunate to meet her, but also the patients, and their families, who were able to access better cancer care because of her volunteer work. To her husband Jim, her sons Brett and Eric, and their extended family, I send our deepest condolences.

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Abbotsford for going forward with his private member's bill, Bill C-314. I have a question for him on veterans. When veterans were phoning in for help on the helpline, MAID was called a benefit. Several veterans phoned our office in Saskatoon asking what the benefit of MAID was. They said when they phoned looking for assistance, they were told to go to the website; it's right on there that MAID is a benefit. I would like the member for Abbotsford to talk about this, because at no time has it ever been a benefit for a veteran to accept MAID.

Mr. Speaker, the committee sat for months on this bill. There is one discrepancy that I want answered before this comes out, and nobody knows the answer. The Canadian Heritage department officials say that $150 million will go to media in Canada through Meta, Google and so on. The PBO says that it is $329 million. Which is the right? Is it the Canadian Heritage estimate or the PBO estimate that has it at $329 million, 75% going to the big conglomerates like the CBC, Rogers and Bell? Which is the right number, the Department of Canadian Heritage or the PBO?

Madam Speaker, right off the top, I want to state the Conservatives agree that Meta, Facebook and Google should pay. I keep hearing the Liberals, NDP and Bloc say that the Conservatives do not believe that. We do. I will talk about it in my speech, because we do believe that Meta and Google should pay. As for what they are going to pay, let us find out, because there is a big difference between what the government thinks publishers are going to get and what the PBO thinks is going to be available. Bill C-18 came out of committee just last Friday, and this week I think we are going to see its quick passage. I really enjoyed the intent of the bill when it came out. When it was first introduced over a year ago, I loved it. It was all about helping local media. I was part of that media back in Saskatoon for years on the television side. However, Bill C-18 was about local newspapers then. That was the objective of Bill C-18 when it was first introduced over a year ago. Our Conservative team then invited Saskatchewan and Alberta newspaper associations to testify at committee. We need Meta, Facebook and Google to pay for news. I have stated that. However, what we heard from Steve Nixon, executive director of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association, was that the bill needed to include one-person operations to really make an impact on saving the news industry in Saskatchewan. Steve Nixon mentioned in committee that only four or five operations are going to be eligible in Saskatchewan. Through amendments, those with one and a half people and over will get money from Meta and Google. We wanted it at one, but we did not get that in committee. Dennis Merrell of the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association said that only 50% of Alberta weeklies would qualify for money under Bill C-18. There are one-person newsrooms in Alberta, but they do not count. They would get no money out of this bill. Two people are needed to qualify. The bill had all the right intent to preserve rural reporting of news, yet we did not get there. Unfortunately, the bill was hijacked early with the lobbying of the CBC, Bell Media and Rogers. They found a way to convince the Liberal government that they needed more money. Many already made deals with Meta and Google before we even started in committee. This was kind of funny, because Colin McKay, representing Google, came to committee and admitted it already had 150 publishers signed up. Those with the ability to make the deals beforehand have made the deals. They saw what happened in Australia, so they made deals before the bill was even introduced, and they get the first cut of the money. How much did these agreements go for? We do not know and probably will never know. Torstar, The Globe and Mail, National Post, Le Devoir and others have made one-off agreements with the tech giants. The little guys, whom I feel for, are left to defend for themselves. They may have to join others to negotiate. If not, they are done and will close. We agree with Kevin Desjardins, president of Canadian Association of Broadcasters, who said there will be winners and losers with Bill C-18. It did not have to be this way, but I would say before we got started on this bill, it was all decided beforehand. I believe, as the Conservatives believe, that the CBC should not be involved at all in Bill C-18. The CBC is already funded by the taxpayers of this country to the tune of $1.2 billion, yet the government, in the fall economic update, gave it another $42 million, with $21 million to deal with this year and another free $21 million to deal with next year. Let us level the playing field. How do we do that when the public broadcaster already gets $1.2 billion and an additional $42 million? We can say we are going to level the playing field, but tell that to rural Manitoba. Tell that to rural Saskatchewan, Alberta or even Ontario, where they are trying every day to make payrolls. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the public and private broadcasters would get $248 million of the $329 million paid out annually through this bill. It is possible that the CBC will be the single biggest winner. Why should that happen? As I said earlier, it gets more than enough funding through the taxpayers of this country. An interesting note is that heritage department officials came up last week with the number that they thought Meta and Google would pay newspapers and those involved in Bill C-18. Their number was $150 million, which kind of surprised me a bit because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a long time ago, said there was going to be a pot of $329 million. However, 75% of the $329 million will go to CBC, Rogers and Bell. The little guys will fight over the rest. Unfortunately, these local newspapers are struggling now, and the national players have already lined up and made their agreements with Meta and Google. With the one-horse show we are seeing in rural Canada, too bad for local newspapers. They thought they were going to get help in Bill C-18 because the Liberals talked about it a year ago, saying this is a bill for newspapers. However, it turned out to be anything but. Instead of looking through the classifieds, we know that everyone goes to social media. People sell their furniture on Facebook Marketplace. Companies put jobs on LinkedIn. Service classifieds go to sites like Craigslist. It has all changed; we see it. Papers have always made their money through the classifieds, but that no longer happens. Then there is the concern about subscriptions. They are getting cancelled because everyone wants free stuff and they are getting it for free online right now with Facebook, Google and so on. Finally, there is advertising. The Liberal Party of Canada spent $4 million on Facebook. It could have helped rural Canadian newspapers instead of spending that on Meta last year. The federal government spends a lot of money on Facebook, Google and so on. Local papers used to be a primary target for government advertising and information about government programs. Years ago, they got some advertising and it helped them a lot. However, they got very little this time. When the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act was passed by the government, it gave most of the money to the big boys, such as Facebook, Google and so on. Much of the traffic does not go to the local newspapers now. We have heard from industry on more than one occasion, both large and small outlets, that the government simply does not advertise as it used to. It does not make its way down to the local newspapers or outlets in any meaningful way. Instead, the government has turned more and more to online advertising on social media. I heard about the issue when the government was advertising the COVID relief programs. Most of the money went to the big tech conglomerates, which is a bad outcome for local news. Many papers across this country have been forced to close up, leaving a void in their communities. I am especially worried about the archives when a newspaper closes in a community. Where do the archives of that newspaper go? We should all be concerned about Canadian heritage. When a newspaper closes its doors, so does the history of a community. It is not replaced by Facebook and it is not replaced by Google. That should concern everybody in this country. We heard testimony from department officials that funding is only afforded to the outlets with one and a half journalists or more. Many of these outlets will be left behind to perish. This is tough because we had a newspaper in Davidson, Saskatchewan, that sold for one dollar. It is still operating. Two years ago, it sold for one dollar and it is still producing local news in the Davidson area today. I feel that many of the papers in rural Canada will sell for one dollar, but the problem is that instead of selling, they are going to close their doors for good.

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should know that the CRTC has never regulated newspapers in this country. It has only dealt with television and radio. Now we are going to ask an agency to look after newspapers. The CRTC will decide who is going to win and who is going to lose. Ian Scott, the chairman, is leaving next month, so there will be a new five-year appointment coming up. Is the CRTC capable today of regulating? We all know the answer already. It has difficulty in broadcasting. Can it afford to make the same mistakes that it made with broadcasting that I think it will make in the newspaper sector in which it has no background at all?

Madam Speaker, I am concerned. I said that right off the top. When Bill C-18 was introduced over a year ago, the bill was designed to help local newspapers in this country. Now we find out when we peel back the onion that public broadcaster CBC, Rogers and Bell, are going to get 75% of the funding from Meta and Google. Why are they at the trough? We dealt with Bill C-10 and Bill C-11 before, which pertained to those industries. Bill C-18 was designed for newspapers, as we have found out with the department saying only $150 million will be raised. Is it $150 million, or what the PBO said is a bigger pot of $239 million?

Madam Speaker, a number of us in the House support local newspapers in this country. I would say 250 out of the 337 of us now, since yesterday, sponsor local newspapers with ads. You are shaking your head, Madam Speaker. Are you are not one who puts an ad in a newspaper? I am sure the member for Edmonton Strathcona is one of them, because she knows the importance of local media, especially around Edmonton.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the fall economic statement this afternoon. I have to say that I am, along with many Canadians, deeply disappointed in the fall economic statement because it was an opportunity to provide real leadership to Canadians, give relief to small businesses in this country and take action to address the rising costs we are seeing coast to coast to coast. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has forgotten that we are in the worst cost of living crisis we have seen in a generation. Inflation, as we have talked about for months in the House, is at a 40-year high. Gas prices are still at record levels, especially diesel. Housing is more expensive than it has ever been. Where did this crisis start? This time, the Liberals cannot blame the person by the name of Stephen Harper. They have had seven years to correct this. They want to blame global economic conditions, and sure, maybe that has a bit to do with it. However, what is the real root of the inflationary crisis we find ourselves in today? What has made everything worse in this country? The Liberals know, but they do not want to say. They know that the crisis has been caused by years of massive out-of-control Liberal deficit spending. I was here in 2015 when the Liberals came into power, and Conservatives left them with a balanced budget and a very good economic forecast. That was left to them by a responsible Conservative government. They, in seven years, squandered it. I get it. The Prime Minister could not help himself. His agenda was failing, so he needed to try and buy votes every way he could think of. However, the chickens have now come home to roost. The price of chicken, by the way, has doubled since the Liberals took office in 2015. All that spending they have done in the last seven years has driven inflation to a 40-year high. Canadians coast to coast to coast are struggling mightily. Canadians are having to choose between filling their cars with gas, putting food on the table and heating their homes. A paycheque today does not go as far as it used to. Liberal inflation, combined with Liberal tax hikes, means that Canadians need to do more with less. What does the government propose? It proposes to make everything worse in this country. This economic statement introduces another $20 billion of inflationary spending to drive inflation up even further. It also includes hikes to EI premiums next month and to CPP contributions, taking more money off of everybody's paycheque. Instead of stopping their tax hikes, the Liberals are pushing forward with their plan to triple the carbon tax in 2023. That is right. In the dead of winter, the Liberals will be raising the cost of fuel, home heating and groceries. Food bank usage, as we all know, is already at an all-time high in this country, with a 35% increase in the last year. In my city of Saskatoon alone, with a population of about 250,000, about 20,000 people a month visit the food bank. The city of Saskatoon used to be the economic engine of Canada. Executive director, Laurie O'Connor, admits the numbers she sees coming through her door every day are very concerning. The donations of food and purchasing power have significantly decreased because food is so expensive. It is going to only get worse. Members may recall that the 13th edition of Canada’s Food Price Report came out yesterday. It says a family of four will see their food bill go up by over $1,000, reaching about $16,000 a year. According to Stuart Smyth from the University of Saskatchewan, who helped in the report that was released yesterday, a family of six will pay over $21,000 in 2023 for food. The problem is right in front of the Liberals' faces, and they have simply ignored it. In Saskatchewan, the temperature today hit between -30°C and -40°C, and it is early December. People of my province are trying to figure out what temperature they can afford to set their thermostat to. If we think about it, in the last week in Saskatchewan, it was -30°C to -40°C already, and we are not even at January temperatures. I want to know what the Prime Minister would say to the families who are already struggling to put food on the table when they see the last few dollars they have being used up when they move the thermostat up. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government has failed those families. They have failed retirees and the people living with disabilities who are on a fixed income. What should the government be doing today? First, without question, it should cancel all planned tax hikes and stop any government-mandated increases to the cost of living, with no hikes at all to payroll taxes and no tripling of the carbon tax. Canadians simply cannot afford any more of this Liberal tax increase. Second, it needs to stop creating new inflationary spending. We know that government spending is only going to make inflation worse. If a minister wants to spend more money, he or she should have to find the equivalent savings in their budgets. Even the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that a bit in the fall economic report. However, while she did mention it, the Liberals gave the CBC an additional $42 million over two years. Why? It is because the CBC had a tough time during the pandemic. This is the type of spending that has got to stop in this country. The CBC, the public broadcaster, already gets between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion, but they will then be given an additional $42 million over two years. Plus, we found out today that it is going to be at the trough when Bill C-18 gets cleared through the House. The public broadcaster will be one of the biggest beneficiaries from Google and Facebook when that bill passes through the House. When the Prime Minister was first elected he promised that deficits, as we all recall, were not going to exceed $10 billion and that he would balance the budget by 2019. We all know that was a farce. The pandemic is not the only thing to blame here. Forty per cent of the government's new spending measures had nothing to do with the last two years of COVID. Since coming to power, the Prime Minister has introduced $205 billion in new inflationary spending, which had nothing to do with COVID, and I just mentioned the public broadcaster. The cost of the interest payments on the federal government's debt has doubled. The payments are nearly as high as the cost of the health transfers to the provinces. Imagine what could be done today if that money were directed elsewhere. Instead, due to this Liberal mismanagement, we have interest rates that are increasing faster than they have in decades. In fact, we expect another 50 basis points tomorrow by the federal Bank of Canada. Mortgage payments, as we all know, are going sky high. Therefore, anyone who bought a house a few years ago and has to renew their mortgage could pay up to $7,000 more a year. Many Canadians cannot afford that. Some, unfortunately, are losing their homes. While the Liberals are focused on making the problem worse, Conservatives are going to propose some solutions for Canadians. Instead of printing more money, a Conservative government would create more of what money buys. We will get more homes built and make Canada the quickest place in the world to get a building permit. Young Canadians who have never been able to afford a home and start a family under the Liberals will find a more competitive and more affordable market under our Conservative government. A Conservative government will make energy more affordable. We will repeal the anti-energy laws and axe the carbon tax. We will not punish Canadians for heating their homes or simply driving their kids to activities, if they can even afford those activities in 2023.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that if they do not have to pay the interest, and we can defer the interest payments for I do not know how many years, that would obviously help the students of today going to school. At the same time, who is paying the interest on those loans? It is going to be Canadians. I can say that it was a good gesture to help not only university students but also students going to college who are taking part in the trades we have in this country. It was a good gesture. I do not know how long we can go on with it because of the Liberals' spending. We are seeing interest rates rise almost every two or three weeks in this country because of the money they are spending.

Madam Speaker, yes, health care is essential in this country, but we have seen, coming out of the pandemic, that there is excruciating pain in every hospital in this country. The pandemic was not easy for every hospital in every province in this country. We are fighting the shortage of doctors and nurses. It would be nice if we could take out of the air an extra hundred doctors and put them in the city Saskatoon, but that is not possible. We will see where it is going to go. It is an interesting time, as we are coming out of the pandemic. With the Liberals' spending, it is going to be tougher to get out of it because of the interest rates that we are going to see in the next little while.

Madam Speaker, I am fairly confident that in the province of Saskatchewan we have really moderate housing costs compared to everybody else in the country. I feel for those people starting out who are living in Vancouver and Toronto and the GTA, where it is without question nearly impossible to start under $700,000 or $800,000. In my city and my province, that would get people a pretty good house these days. Canadians really do want to save for housing. It is going to take a little time. I am really disturbed by the interest rates. I lived when they were 12% to 18% in the 1970s and 1980s. It was hard. The younger folks, if I can say this, have never seen 12% to 18% interest rates. They have to get used to it because the way the government is spending, we are getting there faster than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. The one-time handouts by the Liberal government are not a solution to financial insecurity. The government continues to give its friends lucrative contracts, raising the price on groceries, gas and heating just to subsidize its reckless spending. Canadians are rightly concerned about their financial future. Will the government finally listen to Canadians and stop its inflationary spending?

Madam Speaker, I was on the school board for over 10 years, and I am really happy with the amendments the Conservatives made for off reserve urbanites, if I can say that, because in school divisions across this country, that is a big issue. I would like the member to address those who have come off reserve and are now unnoticed when they get into the big city. I like the amendments proposed by the Conservatives.