Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General report that was published two weeks ago points to the abject failure of the Indigenous Services Canada department to implement any of the concrete changes related to how it handled the emergency planning for first nations communities. They were recommended in the audit of 2013. In 10 years, the department could not change its approach to make the lives of indigenous people better. How confident is the member of the Liberal government that it would act on any of the recommendations made by the national council for reconciliation?

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 57th Vanier Cup, the Canadian university football championship, and it is a dream match-up that will occur in London, Ontario: the University of Saskatchewan Huskies against Laval's Rouge et Or. Both teams finished seven and one during the regular season, and both teams won in playoffs last weekend, setting up the third time they will meet in Vanier Cup history. Saskatchewan are led by Scott Flory, their head coach. He has the Huskies back for a second straight time trying to win the national championship. I think we can expect a high-scoring game tomorrow. Saskatchewan led the country with 348 yards per game, thanks to fifth-year quarterback, Mason Nyhus. Rouge et Or are led by HEC Crighton Award winner, Kevin Mital, who led the country this past year in receptions and yards. These are the stars of the future. I wish good luck to both teams tomorrow in the 57th annual Vanier Cup.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill S-4. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac. We are looking forward to hearing his comments as well. As we all know, the goal of this bill is to increase the efficiency, the effectiveness and the accessibility of the criminal justice system in response to the challenges that we had with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has contributed to the enormous backlog that we have in the criminal justice system today. The Conservatives have been raising concerns about delays and potential for criminals to simply walk free due to the Supreme Court's decision on Jordan. That decision said that no more than 18 months could pass between laying a charge and the end of a trial case in provincial courts or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have seen a number of cases throughout Canada, provincially, certainly exceeding the 18 months over the last couple of years. In the interest of serving justice, why would we not implement all the modern tools and resources at our disposal today to maximize productivity? The resources being considered include amending the process for peace officers to apply and obtain a warrant using telecommunication rather than appear in person and expanding the ability to conduct fingerprinting of the accused at a later date, in exceptional circumstances, should fingerprinting not previously have been taken. The justice would have the discretion to determine what would be considered necessary in these circumstances. Also being considered is expanding the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters for accused who are not presented by counsel. We currently have a case in Saskatoon to which this certainly applies. Currently, this only applies to those represented by counsel. Also being considered is expanding the ability for the accused and offenders to appear remotely by audio conference or even video conference in certain circumstances and the allowing of the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference if deemed appropriate and if the prosecutor and the accused consent, as well as using electronic and automatic means to select jurors. Some of these modernizations are beneficial from both a safety and a financial perspective. For example, participating virtually would cut down on the transportation time and the cost and the resources needed to transport and protect the accused. As we know, transportation costs are skyrocketing, it seems like every day. We all know that. It is not an insignificant consideration, considering the price of diesel and gas, especially in remote and northern communities. The federal ombudsman for victims of crime has also raised a number of concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the justice system, which must be carefully weighed in the consideration of Bill S-4. The ombudsman pointed out that accessing justice in remote areas of the country, where bandwidth and Internet access remain an issue, could have a negative impact on the delivery of justice. We would not want to see that. She also flagged the issue of ensuring that jurors remain anonymous and the potential to compromise their privacy with facial recognition software. For some victims and their families, it is an important part of their healing process to see the accused and the offenders in person or by video conference. In these situations, the use of a telephone would certainly deprive them of this opportunity. The needs of the victim must, and I repeat, must always be weighed when considering an amendment to the Criminal Code. Access to the Internet for rural Canadians has been a long issue in our country. The current government has promised for years to improve access to the Internet, and we know that this is a big issue in rural Saskatchewan, where I live, and certainly in remote and northern spots in Canada. It is blotchy at best, as it cuts in and out, and it has been an issue for the last seven years that the government has been in office. Not everyone has access to the Internet. We saw this during COVID where schools tried to participate in classrooms and some did not even have access to a computer. There are issues with the Internet, which is a concern for prospective jurors to appear by video conference during the jury selection. A jury summons, as we all know, is a very serious responsibility. However, I think many Canadians simply cannot take time off, particularly if one is a small business owner. It is near impossible for many to be compensated properly. As we all know, time is money and for the majority in our country, the two are certainly hard to fit in when someone does open that letter up and has been selected for jury duty. Our legal system, without question, and we have talked about it for the last two days in this place, needs to improve. Bill S-4 aims to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of the criminal justice system in response to the challenges that we have heard of over the last two years with the pandemic. The bill would also clarify and somewhat broaden the circumstances under which accused individuals, the offenders and others involved in criminal proceedings, may appear by audio conference or video conference. I want to step back and have members think about the horrible incident we had at the James Smith reserve in my province of Saskatchewan, where, unfortunately, 11 people lost their lives over a warrant that had been out for months for Myles Sanderson. If members recall, Sanderson became one of the worst mass murders in Canadian history. That day was September 4. Sanderson murdered 11 and injured 18 others during an early morning killing spree. In total, when Sanderson did die, he had been charged with 125 crimes. James Smith is a small community, roughly about 1,900, in northeast Saskatchewan. Therefore, when we see tragedies like this occur, we often have to ask ourselves if we could have prevented this. The warning signals were there for months, if not years. It is not a coincidence that, since 2015, the violent crime rate in Canada has gone up 32%. This is a staggering statistic that for which the government must answer. The community of James Smith is now left to pick up the pieces of this senseless act. The community has been victimized. Victims should be given at least as much consideration as offenders, but in Bill S-4, they are not even mentioned once. This soft-on-crime agenda by the Liberal government is not serving justice in our country. The bill follows other pre-pandemic efforts to modernize the criminal justice system and reduce the delays in court proceedings. Delays in the criminal justice were already a serious issue before the pandemic. The measures contained in Bill S-4 would both modernize and make it more efficient, hopefully, for certain aspects of the delivery of justice. Several family members have come forward in recent weeks with traumatic stories from the James Smith Cree Nation tragedy. Their stories are a crucial part in the healing process in the delivery of justice on that reserve. These are people we must be mindful of when crafting, carefully, this legislation. If we get the bill right, it will balance the need to improve efficiency with the rights of the people it serves, and always consider the victims and their families as a cornerstone of any justice legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I brought up the victims, because they are not mentioned in Bill S-4. The tragedy in James Smith Cree Nation in Saskatchewan happened on September 4. Now we are at the end of November. Many families and relatives have been victimized more than ever over the last three months. We have not spoken to that. Every day, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix or other news organizations in Saskatchewan talk about the healing process. It might take months, if not years, if ever to forget what happened when Myles Sanderson took the lives of 11 people. There is no question that we need to modernize the justice system. If we had the time, we probably should modernize the House of Commons. We get stuck in our ways over the years and the decades, but this is one thing on which we can all agree. The justice system needs to end the backlog and get people in front of the courts sooner rather than later.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a very good point. Today, we are on screens. Sometimes when they zoom in, someone is fidgeting. We do not see that. I think of the court case and jury selection in a very controversial court case about Colton Boushie in North Battleford, Saskatchewan a few years ago. There was a lot of finger pointing and questions about who was on the jury and who had been declined. We will have to work through this. There is no perfect answer. The member is right. We often see in the House of Commons that the video or the sound is not as good. There will be challenges, certainly, going forward when we do video conferencing or even audio conferencing.

Mr. Speaker, since this government took office, failed Liberal policies have cost thousands of Canadians their lives. Unfortunately, in my province of Saskatchewan, drug overdose deaths are on the rise again this year. Addictions are terrorizing every community across this country and are the result of a failed experiment by the Liberal government to provide taxpayer-funded drugs to addicts. This approach has failed in every jurisdiction it has been tried in. Addiction can happen to anyone. It is a health crisis that unfortunately touches almost all families in this country. It feels like everything is broken in Canada, but there is hope. The Conservative leader has a plan: a compassionate, health-based approach to providing recovery, treatment and counselling. We need to fix the problem. We are losing too many sisters, brothers, parents and friends to drugs.

Madam Speaker, a week ago, I had the great pleasure of attending a very special celebration for an incredible woman at the Preston Park II Retirement Residence in Saskatoon. Ms. Sophie Foster, the longest-living person in Saskatchewan, turned 108. There was a century's worth of friends and family in attendance, and the room was filled with smiles and laughter. Over her many years, Sophie has been a cornerstone of her community. She taught hundreds of students and volunteered as an English tutor for international students coming to Saskatchewan. In 2012, she received the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal in recognition of her volunteerism to her community. Today, I ask the entire House to join me in wishing Sophie, who is now 108 years young, a happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are bracing for hard times ahead due to the costly Liberal-NDP coalition. Its carbon tax is making everything more expensive: groceries, home heating and gas. Saskatchewan families can expect an extra $1,500 bill. Conservatives moved a motion on October 24 to remove the carbon tax on home heating and cancel the tripling of the carbon tax. What did the NDP do? It voted in favour of keeping these crippling taxes, yet this week the leader of the NDP flip-flopped and tweeted that he is demanding the government remove the GST from home heating. No wonder the Saskatchewan NDP did not invite the federal NDP leader to its recent convention. By voting to triple the carbon tax, the NDP has abandoned working families and seniors in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, inflation is at a 40-year high. Thanks to the Liberal government's plan, the cost of food, the cost of transportation and home heating is skyrocketing. Now we have learned that home heating prices will go 50% to 100% more this winter. In my city of Saskatoon, we have seen a dramatic increase in the use of food banks, from 13,000 a month to over 20,000 people a month. Seniors in my constituency are already grappling with day-to-day expenses. The Liberal plan to triple the carbon tax in the new year will only make it more difficult for families and seniors to keep up with the cost of living. Our new Conservative leader will put people first, will protect their paycheques, their savings, their homes and their country. We will continue to fight this dismal Liberal carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking for hope. Every day, Conservatives stand up in the House to tell the stories of real Canadians who are facing the worst financial struggles of their lives, thanks to the mismanagement of the government. Day after day in the House, the Liberals stand up to tell us how well Canadians are doing. Talk about a government being tone deaf and out of touch with Canadians. Will the government finally give Canadians hope and cancel the planned tax increases on paycheques?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we heard damaging testimony from Hockey Canada in relation to the horrendous allegations of an alleged sexual assault that happened some four years ago. Hockey Canada needs to own this. My fear is that someday some of these players will become coaches. The department was notified some four years ago of these allegations. Why did the minister continue to issue funding to Hockey Canada for the last four years?

Madam Speaker, this afternoon the minister is trying to defend the indefensible from coast to coast. Bill C-11 is a disaster, as was Bill C-10, and it is being shut down once again. We had 20 written submissions handed to us last Wednesday at committee from people who wanted to come to committee. The member talks about LGBTQ and indigenous issues. We have not heard from APTN, which was one of the guests the NDP wanted to bring to the committee. It has yet to come to talk to us. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Why do the Liberals want to shut the bill down in the House of Commons, do nothing over the summer and hand it over to the Senate? We have time to bring other issues forward. Proposed subsection 4.1(2) has always been an issue. It was an issue a year ago when we debated Bill C-10 in the House, which they rammed through and then called the unnecessary election. This is the same situation we are seeing today with Bill C-11.

Madam Speaker, before I get under way here this afternoon, I just wish to tell everyone that I am going to split my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We get the good 10 minutes at the later part of the speeches, so I will set him up for it. I am very thankful to speak to the bill today, Bill C-11. It is the programming motion regarding the online streaming act: the successor to, or should I say the copy of, Bill C-10, which we debated here in the House of Commons. Let us step back. We really did not have any debates last June on Bill C-10. It was pushed through the House with no amendments to it. I am really desperate on this one because I thought the government learned last June about Bill C-10 and the flaws that we moved forward now on Bill C-11. As most remember, the Liberals tried the same tactics here in the House with the deeply flawed Bill C-10. It was wrong and undemocratic then. Nothing has changed. It is still wrong and mostly undemocratic now. The Senate is not even going to deal with the bill. To say that we need to pass it in the House today is ridiculous because the Senate, at best, will not see the bill until October. Bill C-10 drew much controversy in the previous Parliament, and I talked about that, due to the proposed infringements on free expression, and massive granting of powers to the CRTC. I have talked for over a year and a half on the CRTC, and I will have more to say on that body and the potential to open up the Internet to broader regulations in a moment, among other serious concerns that I have. Bill C-11 is the same flawed Liberal bill that could have potentially disastrous consequences for Canadian content creators, and most importantly for consumers. Conservatives said then that Bill C-10 needed more study, and we continue to say that today with this bill, Bill C-11. As a former broadcaster, members can believe that I completely understand how desperately the Broadcasting Act needs to be upgraded. It has been 31 years since we started. The act is indeed badly outdated. It does not address the realities of modern broadcasting and content creation, and Canadian broadcasters and creators today are struggling because of that. We absolutely need to put foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters on a level playing field, whatever that looks like. However, the solution, I feel, is not simply to force new realities into this old and outdated structure, or to have the CRTC regulate to its heart's desire. The CRTC is in charge of broadcasting. Seventeen months later, it still has not updated the licence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has been 17 months, and we have heard nothing. That is the CRTC's responsibility today: local licensing. We have heard nothing from chairman Ian Scott on CBC, saying, “We are busy. We are going through it.” Seventeen months later, the public broadcaster still does not have a licence, because the CRTC is looking at it. I do not have to tell everyone in the House, all 338 of us, that we desperately want a three-digit suicide line. As of the month of June the request is a year old. We still have not got it. Why? It is because of the CRTC. Do we see where I am going on this? It is not capable today of doing anything. As for its chairman, Ian Scott, his five-year term is up and he is leaving in September. We are going to have a new chair. He or she will get a five-year term and they will have to be re-educated on what the CRTC actually delivers to the citizens of the country. Regulating the Internet, the Pandora's box that is being opened up in this legislation, is also simply not in the best interests of Canadians. We need to make sure that we are protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. Ensuring those protections cannot start by regulating the Internet and restricting the free speech that we have in the country today. These are issues that need further study at committee. There are dozens of important witnesses that still wish to be heard. As for one of those witnesses, it is kind of interesting to listen to everyone talking about indigenous voices, because we have not heard from the indigenous peoples television network, APTN. We have not heard from it. The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has not come to committee to speak about what Bill C-11 would do for that network, which was started years ago because the public broadcaster did little with indigenous programming. That is why APTN started: it heard voices. In fact, I was at an event on Saturday in Saskatoon, and the Filipino community is asking about Bill C-11. The Filipino community does a half-hour televised tape show in Saskatoon on cable, and they have asked about whether they can continue if this bill passes. I had no answers for them. This is the diversity we are hearing in our country that Bill C-11 has not answered in committee. We have not had a chance to even slice through the first level of onion to get to this bill, and now the Liberal government, as it did last year with Bill C-10, is pushing it through the House, but this time there is no excuse for it. The Senate will not even look at this bill until maybe late in September or early in October. We have all summer to deal with Bill C-11. I remember when the government came into power, and we all remember when it came into power in 2015. It promised sunny ways and made a commitment not to use closure and time allocation as the Conservatives did in the previous government. They have forgotten that in six and a half short years. All I have heard is “Harper this,” and “Harper that”. Now, I am going to suggest that it is the member for Papineau who is shutting everything down in the House of Commons. Now, whenever there is the slickest push-back against the Liberals' agenda, they go straight to time allocation and, today, the programming motion. I participated in the study on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, when the government passed a similar programming motion. Several legal and industry experts came before the committee and raised concerns about the legislation. They were the same concerns from 2021 that have come in 2022. As legislators, have we looked at this bill and said we have done the best we can with it? That is our job. We 338 are elected to get the best bills coming out of the House. Have we done that? We have not done that at all, and the Liberals agree with that, yet they are moving forward today. Tomorrow we will have a full day, going through from noon to nine o'clock, with amendments, then we will push the amendments through from nine until midnight without a word we can say or object to. We proposed further witnesses and debate in the last Parliament, and Canadians deserve better on this bill. The government, however, is clearly sick of hearing about the problems with the legislation. We have gone through two heritage ministers already, and probably will a third when we come back in the fall, and shut down Bill C-11. Thankfully, Bill C-10 did not complete the legislative process because of a useless election. What is it going to be this summer? Now, the chamber has a second chance to get this bill, Bill C-11, right. This time we have the opportunity, as members of Parliament, to give Canadians what they want out of this bill, Bill C-11. First of all, despite claims to the contrary by the minister, Bill C-11 absolutely would leave the door open to the CRTC regulating user-generated content online. In other words, the CRTC could still, under Bill C-11, decide what Canadians can and cannot see. These powers pose a clear threat for free expression in this country, which is the most fundamental right in a democratic country. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC could regulate away free expression online. Second is the fact that the powers the bill grants to the CRTC are so broad and wide-ranging that they empower the commission to essentially regulate any content in a manner it sees fit, and I have talked enough about the CRTC, but that second bullet should be a concern to everyone in the House of Commons. What will happen to the foreign services that are small players in this Canadian market? Where did the Canadian market go? In a small part of the user base, we have new regulations and requirements that we can thrust upon them. Third, the government is asking us to vote on legislation that we do not have all the pieces to. The government says it will address the problems through ministerial order, but it has not shown us what the orders will be. Bill C-11 is a flawed bill.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting about the CRTC. I asked a question of Bell, the owners of CTV. I asked how much it pays for American programming, because every night on television from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. there is American programming and very little Canadian content. It did not answer how much it spent on American content, although it said that when it goes to Hollywood to bid on programming in the fall, it is being challenged now by Netflix, Amazon and others. How could it be challenged in the United States by these streamers when we, all along, have gone there, filled our American basket and brought things up to Canada to produce no Canadian content?

Madam Speaker, all of us know of discoverability. Where do we find things when we are on Facebook? What do I like, what do others like or what does the member from the Bloc like to see? Where will it be the next time we open Facebook? There are algorithms. Who is in charge of determining what we see and where it comes up? If it is Canadian content, will it automatically be in the first 10 things we look at, or will it be down in the 500? We have issues with section 4.2. We have talked about it in the House. We also have a lot of issues with discoverability. There are many Canadians producing fabulous stuff today on YouTube, TikTok and so on. They are more than worried about where this legislation goes when it does become law, next year maybe, because a lot of the creators in this country are making a pretty good living promoting Canadian content.

Madam Speaker, that is interesting because last week in committee, on Wednesday, the clerk gave me 20 printed submissions that we had to deal with. That tells me that as a committee we are not doing our job because these are submissions that have come through the clerk to the committee from people and organizations wanting to speak to this. I want APTN there. I have been requesting that APTN come to committee. We need the indigenous voice on Bill C-11. We have not heard it. That is one of the flaws with this bill. We need APTN to see its future and how Bill C-11 would affect that network.

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that Canada needs a modernized Broadcasting Act that fits today's digital age. Unfortunately, Liberal Bill C-11 is another in a long line of bad Liberal bills. Bill C-11 would create more red tape for businesses and creators, put more control in the hands of the incompetent CRTC and open up a Pandora's box of Internet regulation. If passed, Bill C-11 could give the government the power to decide what Canadians can and cannot post on their social media profiles. Bill C-11 would limit consumer choice, drive up prices, create further uncertainty for Canadian businesses and creators and limit the free expression of all Canadians. It is time for the government to scrap Bill C-11 and get back to the drawing board, once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an enjoyable afternoon listening to some of the fairy tales from the government, because it is cutting off debate after two hours on a bill that, from coast to coast, we have not seen much of. Bill C-18 is an interesting bill. As a former journalist and broadcaster, I am glad today that I have the opportunity to speak to this bill and right the ship, if the House does not mind. I spent 40 years in the industry, in radio and television. I began the career in Yorkton, working midnights as a disk jockey. I spent some time in Melfort doing radio. I moved over to CFQC in Saskatoon—

Mr. Speaker, picking back up, I spent some time at Melfort, went over to Saskatoon in radio and then spent the majority of my career as a sports journalist and anchor at CTV News Saskatoon. As a journalist, I remember having the opportunity to travel and cover some of the biggest news stories in Saskatchewan's history. I was on the field for countless Roughriders games, Grey Cup championships, Olympics and world curling championships. I remember covering the historic attempt when Saskatoon and Saskatchewan tried to get the St. Louis Blues to move to Saskatoon. That was in the 1980s. What a success entrepreneur Bill Hunter and his group had back then, as they had thousands of people activated in our province, all going through the news media. We went to Madison Square Garden in New York for the NHL hearings. I remember the night before the hearings I was in the New York Islanders' dressing room celebrating the team's four-game sweep of the Edmonton Oilers. I talked to the many Saskatchewan-born players on the Islanders' team: Bryan Trottier, Bob Bourne and so on. It was a historic week being in New York trying to get the St. Louis Blues back to Saskatchewan and Canada. I am afraid those stories would probably not be told today because of the lack of budgets for small- and medium-sized news organizations in this country. They have cut their staff, some down entirely to zero. In stations that actually remain, the person we hear on the air is often the only person in the entire building. Big stations are not exempt from this either. I have seen my fair share of colleagues and friends over the years being shown the door when cuts came around to address lagging revenues. Earlier in my career, though, I worked late nights covering the station at a time when there was actually live coverage of radio throughout the night. Now, most stations are live for maybe six hours a day, or 12 at best. It is actually exclusively pre-recorded and it is satellite radio. This is a shame because where can young broadcasters get into the business now when, with a flip of the switch, people can have satellite radio? We are getting ready for question period, and I will, as they say, come back for the rest of the story.

Madam Speaker, Kristie from my riding submitted her passport renewal by mail, which was the only option in March. Still, three months later, she has not received her passport. When she heard from Passport Canada, she was given a phone number that spit out an automated message and then disconnected. When she wanted to file a complaint, guess what number Service Canada gave her? It was the same one. How embarrassing. When will the backlog be cleared?

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than two years since COVID arrived in this country, and public health experts across Canada have been abundantly clear that we will live for years with COVID. Vaccination rates in this country are incredibly high, and the fourth dose of vaccinations are being rolled out. Transmissions, hospitalizations and deaths are all down significantly from the peak, and Canadians want to get their pre-COVID lives back again. Most of the provinces and territories across this country, including mine, the province of Saskatchewan, have lifted all mandates. It is time for the government of Canada to join the provinces and remove mandates from all areas within the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is the latest of the Liberal government's attempts to regulate the Internet and restrict what Canadians can post online. Bill C-11, which is essentially a carbon copy of last Parliament's Bill C-10, would give sweeping powers to the CRTC to regulate the Internet and limit free expression. To make matters worse, the consequences of this poorly drafted legislation will likely be to weaken consumer choice and hurt the potential of Canadian creators. There is no doubt that the Broadcasting Act needs to be modernized for the 21st century, but Bill C-11 is not the vehicle to do it. The heritage minister needs to scrap, today, Bill C-11 and go back to the drawing board once and for all.

moved that Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition—promotion of antisemitism), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, before we get into tonight's debate on my private member's bill, I would like to acknowledge Yom HaShoah, the Holocaust Remembrance Day, which is actually today. Today is a time, I feel, to renew our commitment to combatting anti-Semitism in all its forms. I am honoured today to rise and speak to Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code, prohibition—promotion of anti-Semitism, which is my private member's bill. Bill C-250 is modelled on subsection 319(2), “Wilful promotion of hatred”, in the Canadian Criminal Code. However, the bill focuses specifically on Holocaust denial because of the gravity of the event in our history. If the House chooses to pass Bill C-250, it will make Holocaust denial, which is one of the key indicators of anti-Semitism and radicalization, illegal in this country, and the offence will be punishable with incarceration. B'nai Brith just released its 2021 audit of anti-Semitism incidents this week, and for the sixth consecutive year, records were set for anti-Semitism in this country. There was an increase, unfortunately, of 7.2%. Nearly eight anti-Semitic incidents occurred every day in this country in 2021. The actual number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded last year was 2,799. This marked the fourth consecutive year in which the 2,000 plateau was exceeded. Heather Fenyes is a past president of Congregation Agudas Israel Synagogue, in my city of Saskatoon, a CIJA local partner, a Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights board member and the chair of the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation. This is what she had to say about Bill C-250. “When the Holocaust is denied, Jewish people die. This malignant seed of hate left unchecked threatens Jews at home, in their synagogues and within their communities. Anti-Semitism, the most pernicious of hates, is the canary in the coal mine. Where hate is left unfettered, nobody is immune from its consequences; signalling a threat to all communities. Making Holocaust denial illegal is a step towards creating safer spaces for Jews in particular and building a healthier society.” Kevin Sharfe, president of the Congregation Agudas Israel Synagogue and Jewish Community Centre, said, “Holocaust denial is often a symptom of ignorance or intolerance. Sadly, denying the history of a people can lead to anti-Semitism, and more generally, widespread racism in our community. Healthy education is the way forward.” The CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, made this statement: “Holocaust denial is a dangerous form of anti-Semitism. We deeply appreciate the leadership of the member from Saskatoon—Grasswood who introduced a private member's bill to criminalize this insidious form of Jew hatred. Thank you to the member from Thornhill for seconding [this bill].” Ignorance and intolerance must be confronted and condemned wherever they exist. Ideally, I would be happy if this Criminal Code amendment were never used. Punishment is the last resort. Criminalization is an imperfect tool, but it is also an important tool to stop a behaviour that we as a society consider offensive. Criminalization is also an important step toward changing attitudes in this country. Criminalization will help draw a moral limit on the erosion of history. It will be a message to those who wish to erase historical truths. Suppression of anti-Semitism is not the goal. Education is the key to ending anti-Semitism and the hateful fallout that comes from ignorance. Education is the safeguard of history. Holocaust denial is not free speech; it is an abuse of free speech. It is an abuse of a freedom that we all cherish in this country. It is an attack on Canadian values and our respect for diversity. If we stand by and allow history to be erased by allowing the Holocaust to be denied, distorted or minimized, we allow democracy to be eroded. Research has shown that people who learn about the Holocaust are more likely to care about other communities, develop anti-racist attitudes and oppose persecution. It is imperative that our future generations know and understand that, from early 1941 until 1945, six million Jewish children, women and men were murdered in a state-sponsored genocide we now remember as the Holocaust. We cannot allow this chapter in history to be denied, minimized or lost. We must continue to educate Canadians to face history with courage and to call out and confront intolerance and racism every time it emerges. If we do not continue to educate Canadians about the horrors of the Holocaust and the dangers of anti-Semitism, we leave room for hatred, racism and radicalization to take root and grow more in this country. I will point out two recent examples that come to mind. The first one is the case of Joseph DiMarco. He was a Timmins, Ontario, school teacher who was fired in 2019 after teaching Holocaust denial. The Ontario College of Teachers held a disciplinary hearing last year to deal with the allegations that he taught Holocaust denial theories in the years 2018-19. When DiMarco's teaching licence was pulled, Michael Levitt, president and CEO of Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center had this to say: The disturbing actions by this former teacher demand nothing less than his inability to set foot in a classroom ever again. Instead of using the opportunity to teach about the Holocaust and [even] 9/11 and their lessons, he decided to spread Holocaust denial and antisemitism, doing an extreme disservice to his students.... Educators have a duty to not only provide students with factual information, but to also inspire them to be upstanding citizens who stand against hate and intolerance. I think we would all agree that the most publicized case would be the James Keegstra trial a number of decades ago. For those who do not have the background, Keegstra was charged and convicted of hate speech in 1984 for willfully promoting hatred against an identified group by teaching his students that the Holocaust was a fraud and by promoting anti-Semitism. Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta until he was fired in 1982. He expected his students to accept his views, and their grades suffered if they dared to oppose them. Keegstra, by the way, served as mayor of Eckville, Alberta from 1974-83, when his offensive and anti-Semitic views caused citizens to overwhelmingly vote him out of office in 1983. He appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court, where it was upheld. Most Supreme Court justices believe that hate speech is not a victimless crime. They understood the potential of hate speech and anti-Semitism to be harmful and dangerous, and to promote violence. Violence and radicalization cannot be allowed a space to grow in this country. We cannot overcome and overlook the obvious causes, and when these offences are being perpetrated by educators, they are especially egregious and very harmful. I understand that hatred and anti-Semitism are not eliminated by legislation, but legislation alone is one rung on the ladder. I have heard the criticisms all over on this legislation. I have read media reports that imply that criminalization will only muffle anti-Semitism, but doing nothing is not a solution. It deeply concerns me that for some people doing nothing is an acceptable path forward. Paying lip service and making virtuous gestures is somehow seen as a substitution for action. I want there to be no mistake that education is the action that is needed and that criminalization is the tool to demonstrate that anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, minimization and distortion are not going to be tolerated in this country anymore. A 2020 study on Holocaust awareness by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, conducted by Nanos, supports the notion of education. I will quote that study and I am happy to table the study if there is consensus among members in the House. The 2020 study on Holocaust awareness and education reveals that 59% of people in Canada's Prairies believe that young people are not taught enough about the Holocaust in school, and 73% believe young people are less aware of the Holocaust and its lessons today than in the past, while 92% of people in the Canadian Prairies say teaching about discrimination is either somewhat important or important and 96% believe teaching about the Holocaust is either somewhat important or important. In a July 2021 report on hate crimes in Canada by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, Statistics Canada data indicates an increase in hate crimes. Again I am happy to table the part of that report that says that. If we go back to July 27 last year, it stated, “Statistics Canada released hate crime statistics for 2020 today, revealing that police-reported hate crimes increased by 37 per cent last year and reached the highest number ever recorded, 2,669. According to StatCan's annual police-reported crime statistics report, the Jewish community saw an almost five per cent increase in hate crimes”. I am going to move now to a person I have known for a number of years. He was an educator in the city of Saskatoon. Right now, he is the president of B'nai Brith, David Katzman. He is from Lodge 739 in my city. He made the following comments on a bill to criminalize willfully promoting anti-Semitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust. He described the Holocaust as the industrialization of the mass murder of over 11 million people, including six million Jews. As he said, condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust has always been the most powerful magnet for those who hate Jews, and most often these same haters have a long list of “others” who must be abused or banished. Canadians, he said, treasure our national commitment for all persons to live freely and safely. The government has now taken the precedented step once again of appropriating the private member's bill I introduced as the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. In the last Parliament, it took my bill and fumbled it, and then I actually held on to the ball and got it over the goal line. This time, though, it has taken the text of my private member's bill and parked it halfway through seven pages of potential future promises in annex 3 of the budget document. There is no commitment here, just a vague suggestion of future consideration. I urge members to understand the difference between my bill, Bill C-250, and the version of this bill that the government has chosen to place into the omnibus budget legislation. Bill C-250 will have the teeth that the “budget lite” version will not have.

Madam Speaker, when I pass a private member's bill, I know now how we get it through the House and the other place to become law. We have to be very specific. We cannot have a big bill going into the justice committee because the committee will tear it apart. In this case, this is just one piece because I know the important legislation that is needed in this country for Holocaust denial. It is a very small piece of legislation, but it is a start, as I mentioned in my speech.

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal. He has been a stellar performer on the heritage committee that I serve on. I know, when I put it on the Order Paper, that the hon. member for Mount Royal phoned me right away: It was seconds after it was on the Order Paper. I agree that this needs to change, whether I pursue this as a private member's bill, Bill C-250, or whether the government picks it up and hopefully moves it forward, if it is going to do anything with this bill. Unfortunately, in the last Parliament, the Liberals took my bill but kind of lagged with it, so I had to pick it up and move it forward, which is good. The country has benefited from it. I agree with the hon. member that this is a good bill that is needed, particularly at this time. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in this country, and it is good that we are bringing out this bill in 2022.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's statement here tonight. It is funny, because I have in my hand the annual audit of the anti-Semitic incidents in 2021 from B'nai B'rith. It has eight recommendations. I very much cherish that organization in this country. It has fought through anti-Semitism in this country for decades, and it just had its annual audit. It released eight recommendations. All members of Parliament should take a look at this report that was just released about a week ago.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by Holy Cross High School students in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood. They call upon the House of Commons to adopt human rights and environmental due diligence legislation that would require companies to prevent adverse human rights impacts and environmental damage throughout their global operations and supply chains. It would require companies to do their due diligence by carefully assessing how they may be contributing to human rights abuse or environmental damage abroad and by providing access to remedies when harms occur.

Madam Speaker, the member talks about a political agenda. It is interesting because I have a private member's bill, Bill C-250; its second reading is tomorrow. Lo and behold, during the budget, the Liberals take my private member's bill for the second time. That has to be a political agenda. It does not even have any money involved. It should never have come into the budget bill, but there it is. Why is my private member's bill, Bill C-250, in the budget bill? Is it because it is a political agenda by the Liberal government?

Mr. Speaker, the lineups have already started. Canadians will fill up their gas tanks today and tomorrow in advance of the latest price surge. which will take Canadian gas prices to an all-time high. The increase of the federal carbon tax of $50 per tonne will kick in April 1. Along with the price of gas, the price of everyday essentials will also be going up. Inflation has already surged to 5.7%, the highest in decades, and it is climbing. The majority of Canadians already say they are struggling just to keep up, and it is no wonder. Let us look at food prices. They are up 5.7%. Meat alone is up 10.1%. Bread is up 7.5%. Fresh fruit is up 8.2%. After Friday, Canadians will be paying even more. When will the NDP-Liberal government realize it is hurting all Canadians?

Madam Speaker, I am once again honoured to have the opportunity in this place to speak to the matters contained within Bill C-11, the online streaming act, the new name. I say “again” because, as many will remember, in the previous Parliament we tackled these issues under a different bill, and it was called Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. This is a new bill and a new title, but we still have the same issues that exist with this bill. It was interesting because, moments ago in committee, the heritage minister admitted that Bill C-10 was flawed. He said that proposed section 2.1 should never have been in there, and 4.1. He mentioned those two that we fought on this side, in Bill C-10, for weeks. Unfortunately, even with the flawed bill, it passed the House but then the Liberals called the unnecessary election and the bill died. However, this is the first time the Minister of Canadian Heritage has actually admitted Bill C-10 was a flawed bill. Here we go now with Bill C-11, an update. We all know the update is necessary. It has been 30-plus years since we updated the Broadcasting Act. I was even a young broadcaster 30-plus years ago when this came out. At that time, believe it or not, there was no Internet. It was just radio and TV back then, a little bit of newspaper. Of course, the Internet came and the World Wide Web, as we know it today, has changed a lot. There were no Internet companies and no online streaming services to compete with the healthy Canadian broadcasters. However, when the predecessor of this bill was drafted in Parliament last session, we addressed four major areas of concern where the government legislation lacked significant consideration. I mentioned a couple of those in proposed sections 2.1 and 4.1, but we will go on. First was for social media companies we all know, such as Facebook, Google and their various properties like YouTube, to pay their fair share. We agree. Second was creating that level playing field for digital platforms, like Netflix and Spotify, to compete with the conventional Canadian broadcasters. Third was to define Canadian content. This is the important one. We need to define Canadian content production and media fund contributions by digital broadcasters. What is the formula? Last was the power given to the CRTC, better known as the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, to attempt to regulate in such a broad manner. This is an organization that struggles to enforce its own regulations now. We can even look, today, at Russia Today. They really never did take it down. It was the big conglomerates that moved in and took Russia Today down, like Bell, Rogers and Shaw. It is interesting. I think we could all agree the CRTC should have moved long before Russia Today was pulled down from Canadian programming. Forty years ago, Internet companies and streaming were not even a consideration. Digital information has become absolutely accessible to everyone in this country. The demand for mainstream media, television and radio has nosedived. Streaming services have become the primary source of entertainment for many Canadians. Television stations have had to downsize their operations, along with radio stations. Many have gone dark in this country. The same is true for radio. Right now, radio stations have another issue. Their revenues have dropped as much as 40%. Part of the problem is the public broadcaster, CBC. The government gave it another $150 million more during COVID to compete against private broadcasters. As I just said, private broadcasters' revenues have gone down 40%. CBC has gone up $150 million more in the budget, meaning we can see what is happening in the market. CBC, the public broadcaster, is going up, while the private broadcasters' radio listeners are going down, and thus advertising is not as good. The result, as in my province of Saskatchewan, is that we have seen a major decline in local content. Easy access to digital content has been beneficial to the consumer, but with the outdated Broadcasting Act, the broadcasting sector has had some steep hurdles to overcome, and I mentioned those just seconds ago. It is therefore fair to ask this: What does a modernized act need to accomplish? Does the government's latest attempt, Bill C-11, actually achieve this goal? The first concern we should all address is the notion that the Internet needs to be regulated. We need clarity and clearly defined parameters on which aspects of the Internet would be regulated and to what extent. Would Bill C-11 create an environment where virtually all of the content would be regulated, including independent content creators earning just a modest living from social media platforms such as YouTube? As I mentioned, Bill C-11 is almost a copy of the previous Liberal offering, Bill C-10, which was flawed and failed to address many of the concerns addressed by the experts during its hearings. When we speak of creating a level playing field, is it in the context of giving Canadian content creators the protection they need to produce and compete without impeding their ability to succeed at home and globally? Regulation, done properly, would support the success of Canadian content producers and would meet the objectives of the Canadian heritage mandates to support artists and the cultural sector. However, the bill before us leaves very little hope that this is what would be achieved. I remain very concerned about the CRTC being tasked with administering the act. I have been in the business of television and radio for over four decades, and I have seen that the CRTC is already stretched to its limits with the broadcasting and telecom situation in this country. If the CRTC lacks the capacity to carry out the current mandate effectively, how can it be expected to take on the Internet? The CRTC struggles to cope with the 4,000 or 5,000 entities in the broadcasting sector. We are seeing it in the industry committee now. Rogers wants to take over Shaw, and although this started last year, we still have no definitive action from the CRTC. Will it make a ruling soon on the takeover worth $26 billion? Can it even predict the number of entities that it will be required to look after once online streaming is added to its mandate? How much money and how much talent would the CRTC need on board to keep up with the bill? In fact, does it even understand the scope of the undertaking yet? How many years will it take to understand the criteria and scope and accumulate the resources needed to carry this out? During our last debate on Bill C-10, I asked this of the CRTC chairman, Ian Scott, who, by the way, is stepping down in September after five years: How is the CRTC ever going to pay for this? He gleefully told the committee that it would be going directly to the Treasury Board. Well, we know what that means: The taxpayers will be paying more for their services. What is perhaps most disappointing is that the CRTC will be handed the power to develop the rules of regulating, and it can make those rules up as it goes along. This act would endow the CRTC with the ability to determine its own jurisdiction without constraints.

Madam Speaker, the member for Guelph is so right. Much of our new-found talent came from YouTube and progressed from there. Many do not deserve to be on YouTube, quite frankly, as their careers will never lift off, but it is a way to try to get started. As we move forward on Bill C-11, the discussion will be what to do with the Internet, YouTube and so on, because many performers in this country are making a pretty good living right now putting their talent on YouTube instead of on the traditional media that we know today of radio and TV.

Madam Speaker, the member for Drummond is a valuable member on the Canadian heritage committee, and he has been on it for years. We worship his input and always have interesting conversations. He is a member from the province of Quebec, and one of the issues with Bill C-10 was protecting Quebec culture. We did not see eye to eye on that. Netflix is not going to shoot a show or production in Montreal because it has a limited segment of the population. It would rather do it in English because there is a larger audience. We will go forward with Bill C-11. The member was in the same committee I was, and changes were made to proposed subsection 2(2.1) and proposed section 4.1 between the old bill and the new bill. Maybe it is time for this bill to pass with those two new changes. We will see.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nunavut. I was in Nunavut four years ago for a two-week tour with Senator Dennis Patterson and enjoyed it immensely. The member would know that APTN was formed in this country because voices were not being heard. That is right. The public broadcaster, CBC, did not do a good enough job of broadcasting the voices of Canadians. What had to happen? APTN television, out of Winnipeg, was formed. Why? It was to give a voice to Canadians. I hope that voices in Nunavut will be heard correctly as we move along on Bill C-11.

Madam Speaker, I was a young teenager when the War Measures Act in 1970 gripped the country for many days. I know I do not look that old, but I remember that, back in 1970. I remember watching the event on television, fearful for my country. Fifty-two years later, under a new act, 37 million Canadians in this country are more divided than ever. Our country is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. In 1988—

Madam Speaker, in 1988 under the Conservatives, Parliament debated for months the new Emergencies Act, and up until this week it was never used. The question on everyone's mind in the House is whether the current government should have invoked the Emergencies Act. We have asked the government for weeks what it was doing to defuse the convoy. Many MPs from the opposition side had dialogue with the protesters. In fact, I was one of them. I listened to a number of Saskatchewan drivers who made their way to the nation's capital. That is our job as members of Parliament, to listen to other views that, at times, we may not agree with. That is the tough part of this job, but we have to listen. I found it surprising today that a number of parliamentary secretaries from the government side actually admitted that they, too, were on the street talking with their constituents. That is a shock, because the government never admitted that until today. While it is true that there were many different views being represented in this city, it is entirely unfair to categorize all protesters as fringe extremists. This was the Prime Minister's first reaction in the House. He has a pattern of saying divisive and derogatory things when he is faced with major issues that he is not equipped to handle. We saw a prime example of this just last week when the Prime Minister hurled a very disgraceful insult at my friend and our colleague, the member for Thornhill, a granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, accusing her of supporting a profoundly immoral ideology, the same evil ideology that claimed millions of innocent Jews during the Holocaust. He still today has not apologized. That is shameful for the leader of this country. With regard to the current debate surrounding the Emergencies Act, I do not believe the Prime Minister has met the key thresholds outlined to invoke this act, but we have seen in the last 23 days or so that it lies at the feet of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The government has totally mismanaged this situation. It could have ended, like the blockades at Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, without the need for the Emergencies Act. All four or five of those incidents I just spoke about actually did not need the Emergencies Act. A protest happened, and it was quietly done away with. Why did the Prime Minister then go from zero to 100% without any action or even any dialogue? The key to conflict resolution is to work with people. We all know that. We try desperately on each side to work with people, but using derogatory and divisive language only fans the flames of disagreement, which we certainly saw in the last 23 days. We are all aware that there were some people protesting here in this city with abhorrent, racist views, and I will be crystal clear that I condemn this behaviour and all those views without any reservation. Let us make no mistake. The events of the last month and the government's mishandling of them will go down in history as one of the darkest times in this country. Lots has been said in the House about the foreign money coming into this country with the convoy. GoFundMe froze the funds and returned some to the donors, and then GiveSendGo's website was mysteriously hacked, revealing the names and email addresses of those who contributed to the protests. I can tell members that many Canadians, 48%, donated to this cause. We know Canadians coast to coast to coast have donated $5, $10, $20, $50 or more. In fact, in my province of Saskatchewan, over 1,300 people contributed to the convoy. Of those donations out of my province, 72% were under $100, so we are talking about $10, $20, $50 and so on. I have talked with people who donated and who are now very worried that their bank accounts will be frozen. This is just a terrifying situation for many innocent people who have made modest donations to a cause they supported. The potential for this to severely damage their personal and even business finances is extremely distressing, and it should be for all Canadians. Canadians should not have to worry that their finances are in danger of ruin by the government because they supported this protest. Yes, I do understand that there are extreme cases where this becomes a factor, but in this situation, the government is being heavy-handed, punitive and trying to control by fear. I have received dozens of emails on this matter. I am just going to give three examples, because I have received a big pile over the last three days. On Thursday, I received an email from a woman in my riding saying she donated to the convoy. She is now scared that her bank account will be frozen. The next day she went down to the bank and withdrew a sizable amount of money. Members should think about that. The next day, Friday morning, she is down at the bank saying she wants to withdraw most of her money. A senior in my riding is most disturbed that the government is targeting individual bank accounts. There is another email saying that freezing Canadians' personal or business bank accounts without court order or consequence is totally unacceptable and should have Canadians very worried. I know I am. We all should be very concerned about this. Another troubling aspect of invoking this act is that there are already tools at the disposal of law enforcement to deal with this unlawful protest. The Liberal justice minister claimed it was necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act in order to compel tow truck operators to remove illegally parked vehicles. However, paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code does give police the option to require anyone, “without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace.” I and my Conservative colleagues oppose invoking the Emergencies Act. This is a clear case of government overreach. The act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that cannot be addressed through existing laws. The government has failed to explain why, precisely, this act needed to be invoked at this time. In fact, the following organizations have come out publicly against this Liberal overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to the opposition of seven provincial governments. As we know, governments in the different provinces all have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests. This is a totally dangerous precedent that cannot be easily undone. The Conservative Party has spoken again and again in favour of dialogue and discussion. However, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused. He has chosen instead to divide and insult Canadians. Canadians agree that law and order must be maintained, but the Emergencies Act, the successor of the War Measures Act, is not the way to do it. I cannot, in good conscience, support giving unlimited and unchecked power to a Liberal Prime Minister who has repeatedly demonstrated lack of good judgment here in the House of Commons. My constituents have spoken loud and clear. They demand better leadership than we currently have in this country.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the government gets around looking at bank accounts. I remember in 2015, Leadnow cost Joan Crockatt her MP seat in the city of Calgary. Thousands of dollars from Leadnow, from outside this country, went into the Calgary riding and cost Joan Crockatt her seat. Four years later, we won it back. What about the Tides Foundation in this country? Can we look at those books? It has done irreparable damage in western Canada, with all of the money coming in from the United States and from throughout the world. Those are two great examples to refute what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice just mentioned about people in this country who are worried about this situation.

Madam Speaker, I wonder about the great Tommy Douglas. What would he think about her party here today? Tommy Douglas supported the 1970 War Measures Act. What about Svend Robinson, from the member's province of B.C.? He tweeted out that he cannot believe what the NDP stands for today. Why is that? Because it stands for nothing. We know that. It does not stand for Canadians. What about Erin Weir, the former Saskatchewan MP? By the way, we have no more NDP MPs in our province, and have not for two elections in a row. Why is that? It is because citizens of Saskatchewan have seen through that party.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute those involved in the Pegasus project, led by a group of Saskatchewan automotive enthusiasts. It raised over $1 million at the recent Barrett-Jackson auction in Arizona to support the STARS air ambulance in my province of Saskatchewan. A custom-built, one-of-a-kind 1968 Ford Mustang 427 Fastback was auctioned off in hopes of raising much-needed funds for the STARS' fleet renewal. This initiative was led by co-chairs Vaughn Wyant and Wayne Halabura, who brought Saskatoon actor Kim Coates and Humboldt Bronco bus crash survivor Kaleb Dahlgren on board. I want to thank Barb and Gord Broda of Prince Albert for their passion in supporting STARS ambulance. May they enjoy the ride in their 1968 Ford Mustang.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition — promotion of antisemitism). Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code in order to prohibit the promotion of anti-Semitism. I would like to thank my colleague from Thornhill for sponsoring this important bill. From early 1941 to the spring of 1945, six million Jewish children, women and men were murdered in a state-sponsored genocide we now remember as the Holocaust. Holocaust distortion, denial and anti-Semitism must be confronted with the strongest opposition and condemnation. Ignorance fuels intolerance. We must continue to teach the truths of the past. Education is the safeguard of history. We must face history with courage and boldly call out and confront intolerance whenever it exists. The passage of this bill would protect the truth. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. It has been kind of a history lesson here today. We have heard about the Hudson's Bay Company, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. It has been refreshing to go back over 100 years today as we talk about the Saskatchewan Act. I give credit to the member for Regina—Lewvan for bringing this very important motion to the House today. I chair the Saskatchewan caucus and, for the second consecutive election, we returned 14 out of 14 Conservative MPs to the House. It is very important that we open the dialogue today to have a wholesome discussion on the Saskatchewan Act and what it means to my province, which has a population of 1.2 million. When we see CP Rail's profit of $341 million, I do not have to say that $341 million to a population of 1.2 million is a very substantial amount. We can start way back on October 21, 1880. I am going to give some history, as there has been many history lessons in the House this morning and this afternoon. It was the Government of Canada that entered into the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which we all know back then was trail-blazing. It opened this country up from east to west, part of that was Saskatchewan. In clause 16 of that 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway company, and that is what we are talking about here today. In 1905, as everyone knows, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created my home province of Saskatchewan. Canadian Pacific Railway has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the province was established. That has been a topic of conversation today, but I want it on the record that it has paid taxes to the Saskatchewan government. CP is currently attempting, though, to use a clause in the Saskatchewan Act as justification to avoid paying any provincial taxes on its main line. This represents, as I said, an enormous revenue loss for the provincial government and the people of Saskatchewan, which only 1.2 million strong. It is only fair that CP, as a corporate giant, pays its share, on which I think we all agree in the House. In 1966, Ian Sinclair, then the CP Rail president, agreed to a constitutional amendment to eliminate this tax exemption. The constitutional change is the quick and efficient way to make this happen, and it should happen without delay. The Province of Saskatchewan has adopted the motion to amend the Saskatchewan Act and the Constitution of Canada during the fall sitting. In December, the Saskatchewan Conservative regional caucus urged the federal government to support the Saskatchewan government's approved motion to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. Section 24 of the act contains a contentious exemption for Canadian Pacific Railway from various Saskatchewan provincial taxes. In order for this section to be removed, though, a similar motion must now be passed at the federal level, here in the House and also in the Senate. That is why Canada's Conservatives are calling on the federal government to listen to the Saskatchewan government and support the motion that we have put forward today in the House to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. The tax loss to Saskatchewan would hurt provincial services if the Liberal government refuses to stand up for tax fairness and ensure that CP Rail pays its fair share to the people of Saskatchewan. CP Rail, as I mentioned, is a corporate giant. There is no reason it should enjoy an exemption from provincial taxes. There is also no reason the government should delay responding to the provincial government's request. Canada's Conservatives are always on Saskatchewan's side. Those tax dollars need to stay right at home in my province of Saskatchewan. CP Rail and the Saskatchewan government have been engaged now for about 13 years in a legal battle with the railway seeking roughly $341 million. It is coming out now because the provincial legislature in Saskatchewan passed a motion unanimously on November 29, 2021. In Saskatchewan legislature, just to fill us in, there are only two parties. The Saskatchewan Party is the official government and the official opposition is the NDP. Here we have the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP agreeing on one thing, that the Saskatchewan Act has to come to the House of Commons and later to the Senate. I have spoken to the Saskatchewan justice minister, Gordon Wyant, a couple of times, dealing with the Saskatchewan Act. The Saskatchewan justice minister was quoted as saying, and I quote, “We are going to vigorously defend the claim that has been brought by the railway to defend the interests of the people of Saskatchewan”. This resolution needs to be approved by the federal government, passed through the House of Commons right here in front of 338 members, and then on to the Senate. Minister Wyant has had conversations, I know, with the federal justice minister on the issue of the Saskatchewan Act. We are hoping today that the motion will move forward. It is my understanding that several MLAs in my province have even reached out to Saskatchewan senators to start the dialogue. If we can pass the motion through here, it goes to the Senate. The conversations have started not only here today in the House of Commons, but also, more importantly, in the Senate where they will have to deal with this. As members of the House are likely aware, CP Rail is suing the Government of Saskatchewan for the $341 million. They claim a broad tax exemption under section 24. This matter is currently before the courts, so most of us really do not want to talk about that, because it is before the court. Therefore, the Government of Saskatchewan believes that today it is time to repeal section 24 regardless of whether it is in force or not. If the tax exemption remains in force, I do not have to tell the members of the House, it creates a substantial inequity within our own province. $341 million would be eliminated from the taxes of only 1.2 million in our province. As a matter of the tax policy and business competitiveness, there must be a level playing field for all businesses in our province of Saskatchewan. We all agree that all businesses should pay their fair share of taxes, and by supporting this motion, it would send a strong signal to my province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewanians desperately want the motion today regarding the Saskatchewan Act passed. It would show federal support from that side of the house and the opposition parties. It would show that we do care about the province of Saskatchewan. This is an important motion put forward today by the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. He was a member of the Saskatchewan legislature before he became a member of Parliament. He knows very well the pressures on the provincial government in Saskatchewan. He was in their caucus for a number of years and he knows first-hand that Saskatchewan, being a small province, does not have a lot of corporate businesses. CP Rail is one of the biggest, and as has been mentioned today, it makes a lot of profit. Profit is good, but at the same time, CP Rail must pay its fair share of taxes. On behalf of residents of Saskatoon—Grasswood, it has been a pleasure to speak to the motion moved by the member for Regina—Lewvan on the Saskatchewan Act.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from across the aisle. We are here today in the House talking about the Saskatchewan Act. It would be premature for many of us to reach out to any of the senators. However, I can tell the hon. member there has been discussions from MLAs, maybe a couple of the MPs from Saskatchewan too, and our only Conservative senator in the Senate. We have five senators from Saskatchewan. They have signed a letter of intent. I have not seen that letter, but before Christmas I understand they did sign the letter and that is the first step moving forward in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I think the dialogue really started on November 29, 2021, in the legislature in Saskatchewan with unanimous consent on the Saskatchewan Act. That includes the NDP and the Saskatchewan Party, which has several Conservative and Liberal members in it, as it forms the majority in our province. They have reached out I am sure. Gordon Wyant, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, has reached out to the justice minister, and I am sure they have had conversations in the Senate. Unfortunately, we only have five senators. We can have that discussion, hopefully after this motion passes, and maybe we can talk to all 105 senators to feel them out on the Saskatchewan Act.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for his advocacy on this. He has been stellar for the province of Saskatchewan in bringing this motion forward today as an opposition day motion. The Conservative government will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that is what we are talking about here. The province of Saskatchewan is very small in population. What could we do with that $341 million? I am not the finance minister, but if I were the finance minister of Saskatchewan, I am sure I would quickly have a list from Regina to Saskatoon.

Madam Speaker, in its race to the moral high ground, the CBC has blindsided Canadians by appointing itself Canada's word monitor. It recently brainstormed a list of 18 words that should never be uttered. I wonder if it was a really slow news day for the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster. Dictating a list of words is actually no substitute at all for the real work needed to end aggression. Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage actually think it is the job of the CBC to think for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the Saskatoon arts and drama community has lost a treasurer in the passing of Henry Woolf. Woolf was an actor, a director, a writer and a teacher. His work could be seen on the stage, television and the big screen. Woolf moved to Canada in 1978 to teach drama and work in theatre. He was a mentor to a new generation of artists. He was beloved by his students. In fact, one student named Jeff Rogstad said that his fingerprint is all over the theatre community in Saskatoon. Woolf served as the artistic director of the Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan festival for a decade. A portrait of Woolf in the role of Shylock hangs outside the theatre bearing his name at the University of Saskatchewan drama department. Woolf's legacy is the culture he nurtured, inspired and cultivated throughout his remarkable life. As one student said, it is hard to be sad today because we had so much fun.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you and your family on your 15 years of public service. You have been a leader in our caucus for many decades. Last night, I caught your retirement speech, whenever that retirement comes. You reflected very well on your years of service. You have done our country very proud and I want to wish you all the best when you do leave that chair and you leave this place. On behalf of me and my family, thank you very much for your years of service. Now to the topic of the budget implementation act, 2021. It was one of the most important budgets in recent memory. Canadians were waiting for it. Why do I say that? We waited over two years for the budget. The pandemic started last March and the Liberals continued to delay the budget and the numbers went higher and higher. Then we found out we are $600 billion, or so, down over a trillion, in debt in this country. It was interesting when the numbers started popping out and Canadians from coast to coast to coast were surprised at the big numbers. As we see a little inflation here in the last while, they are really going to be surprised at the results. We all know workers faced a year and a half of uncertainty about their employment, about their wages. In fact, now the question is when they will be able to return to work and whether a job will be there for them in the coming weeks. Business owners continue to face uncertainty whether they have a small, medium or large company. Tonight while I was listening to the speeches, I received a text from Allan who owns SaskWest Mechanical in Saskatoon. He told me the costs are skyrocketing in his business. Sheet metals are going sky-high. He said that last August they were $24 a sheet. Today, suppliers are charging him $49.21 and they will not even hold pricing for more than 24 hours. Think of the uncertainty even quoting a job for the employees that he has. I cannot imagine quoting a job. It was nice to hear from Allan today. He has been in my office a couple of times. There is uncertainty with his business. He employs a lot of people. Heating is his business. He does a lot of commercial jobs and he faces the rise in costs as he quotes for jobs. Prices are going up, for food, meat, lumber, almost everything that we have talked about. I hope I do not jinx it, but I think we are seeing the end of the light. I look at my province of Saskatchewan and I am going to give some kudos here tonight. Saskatchewan wants to be fully open by July 11. I have had my second dose of vaccine, so I am happy. I had the first one in April and my second one last week, so we are pretty good. I arrived in Ottawa on Sunday, and here in Ontario it is night and day. Shops are still closed. People can only go to restaurant patios. In my province of Saskatchewan we are almost wide open right now. I credit that to the Saskatchewan Health Authority and Premier Scott Moe. The goal is to have everyone age 12 and over completely vaccinated. Right now the goal is to get to 70% of people having at least one vaccine. Today, we are at 67% in Saskatchewan. We are only 3% below that goal. In fact, Saskatchewan officials said today we only need 28,000 more people to get their first shot and then we are going to open things up. Is that not a great story in the province of Saskatchewan. However, for the last 14 months, the province could not get the vaccines it needed, especially up in northern Saskatchewan where vulnerable situations exist. The first thing the Province of Saskatchewan tried to do was work with the indigenous communities. In fact, I am so proud of Saskatoon Tribal Council Chief Mark Arcand who took it upon himself to have vaccines made available at the SaskTel Centre for indigenous people and everybody else in the Saskatoon area. It has been a wonderful outreach by the Tribal Chief of Saskatoon. People in the community have been able to get their vaccine. Today, for football fans, it was announced that Saskatchewan's premier wanted to see 33,350 people at the Mosaic Stadium for the home opener on August 6 against the B.C. Lions. That is now a goal in the province of Saskatchewan. However, the last 14 months have been devastating in Saskatchewan and across the country. We are all asking ourselves, “When are we going to reopen? How are we going to manage the debt. How much debt will there be?” I talked about inflation, which is at its highest point in over a decade. We are up 3.6% this year alone. The declining state of the Canadian economy is a major concern. The member from Niagara talked about a baby born in Canada today is already $28,000 in debt. My daughter will deliver our second grandchild next Thursday in Saskatoon. We should be celebrating. I will now have two grandchildren. One is five and a half years old and the other will be born next Thursday, but with a $28,000 debt. That is what we have done to our kids. When the baby comes next Thursday, June 24, we will celebrate, but I also have to tell my daughter and son-in-law that is $28,000 in debt. How are they going to pay for that? Canadians are resilient. They have faced uncertainty about the stability of our health care system. Thankfully, it has held up so far. We have had hiccups all over the country, but I think everyone would agree that we are coming out it now, some faster than others. We are a little concerned about Ontario and Manitoba, but they are coming out of it as we speak. Therefore, we need a plan to secure the future of our country, to secure the future of my daughter's child who will be born next Thursday. We also need a plan that secures good jobs for Canadians; that secures accountability in governments, and we have talked a lot about that tonight; that will secure mental health for Canadians and supports for those who are really struggling. Over the last 14 months, we have seen a decline in mental health. We all know someone who is struggling; some openly and others sit at home and say nothing. We see it in the House of Commons. Many of our staff have not been in the office. How are they doing at home? They get their work done, but when we come back to Ottawa and have a chance to see them, that is when we will know if things have changed in the last 14 months. We need to secure our country against the next pandemic. We must get prepared for that. We need to secure our economy in the long term. The government is woefully unprepared to implement such a plan, and budget 2021 missed the mark in providing one. The Parliamentary Budget Officer even noted that the significant amount of Liberal spending would not stimulate jobs, and we saw massive job losses in the last two months alone. In April, 129,000 jobs were lost. We had another decline in May. That cannot happen anymore, because mom and dad coming home without a job does not sit well in the family.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary; he has been a great spokesman for northern Canada. In my province of Saskatchewan, the hospitality industry has really been hit in the last 14 months. We have hotels that had opened, and the operators have phoned my office in the last couple of months saying that they missed the timing when they opened last April. Twelve or 13 months later, there is no business. The other one is the tourism industry. The member is from northern Canada. The tourism industry is very important up north, but it is also very important in our province.