- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Lethbridge
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,565.29
- Government Page
- Dec/8/22 4:01:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauce.
When I was first elected to this place, after about a year’s time, I was approached by a member of the Liberal Party. He came to me and he was trying to make chit-chat. He took an interest in my riding and asked me where I was from. I said Alberta, and more formally Lethbridge.
He asked if that was a rural riding. I said, yes, it was mixed with a small urban centre. He asked if there were farms. I said, yes, we have farms. He asked what we produced, so I gave him the list: chicken, eggs, beef, pork, buffalo, grain, cereals, pulses and dairy. I am proud of this. He turned to me with an inquisitive look and he said, grain is produced there. I said, yes.
Then he said that it was not really produce for food though. It was just for fuel. I said excuse me, because I did not think I had understood him. He said that it was just for fuel. I explained to this member that some of it was, but mostly it was for silage, for animal food or for human consumption, which was the vast majority. He was a bit dumbfounded. He shrugged his shoulders and said, that was weird, because he thought most Canadians just got their food at the grocery store.
I will let this member remain nameless for his sake, but I share this story for a reason. It highlights how out of touch the Liberal government is when it comes to Canadians, when it comes to their way of life and when it comes to this big, beautiful, vast country we call Canada and all of the many incredible things that are done here. It shows the lack of knowledge that exists when it comes to rural areas and how hard-working, innovative, creative and entrepreneurial farmers are.
Meanwhile, the government likes to exercise its ego, engage in theatrics and virtue-signal, which is primarily what the carbon tax is all about. The government talks about the carbon tax as if it is a price on pollution. I am going to get to that in just a moment because I find it to be an interesting term. What I wish to highlight here is that the Liberals have put this in place, but they have not met a single climate target. That would mean that it cannot be a solution. It is simply signalling a virtue.
I would say it is a failed experiment. What is interesting to me is that even in signalling a virtue, it is a virtue that applies to all others, but not actually to the Liberal Party or the government. I will tell members why. We are talking about multiple Liberal members who will get on jets and fly halfway around the world, multiple times over, to go to climate conferences.
We are talking about a Prime Minister who has no problem getting on his private jet and going to places for frivolous reasons, like surfing, perhaps on important days. We are talking about a Prime Minister who has no problem living in one residence, having his food prepared for him in another, and then being driven in a vehicle that uses fossil fuels on a daily basis. It is interesting.
This virtue that is being signalled, which is to care for the environment, applies to everybody else but not the Liberal members. It is incredibly disingenuous. It is incredibly hypocritical, and it is harming Canadians because it is driving up the cost of everything.
The Liberals' prescribed solution is simply therapy for their guilty conscience, but not something that is creating real change. It is shameful. It is punitive toward Canadians and it is just to help the Liberals sleep better at night while accomplishing nothing.
Let us talk about those farmers. Let us talk about what they really do. Contrary to some of the Liberals' beliefs, they do not just grow crops for fuel. They happen to feed not only our country but the world. Let us talk about them. Let us talk about those hard-working individuals.
In 1978, a radio broadcaster by the name of Paul Harvey gave a speech entitled “So God Made a Farmer.” In it, he outlined the incredible characteristics that a farmer had to hold to be a fit caretaker of the land and the animals. He reflected that it is someone hard working and tough enough to bear the weight and struggle of adversity, yet gentle enough to care for the animals in a beautiful way.
In his speech, he hypothesized:
God said, “I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt. And watch it die. Then dry his eyes and say, ‘Maybe next year.’ I need somebody who can shape an ax handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of car tire, who can make harness out of haywire, feed sacks and shoe scraps. And who, planting time and harvest season, will finish his forty-hour week by Tuesday noon, then, pain'n from ‘tractor back,’ put in another seventy-two hours.” So God made a farmer.
In this simple yet powerful tribute, he really does capture those who work night and day and who often overcome challenge and tribulation to care for the needs of not only our population but also the population of the world. It is remarkable.
We are talking about individuals who are pioneers in looking after the environment. These folks look after the land, the soil, the air and the water like nobody else, yet the government insists that they too need to be penalized with a carbon tax. We are talking about folks who heat their barns to care for their animals, dry their grain so they can get it to market, irrigate so they can have crops and transport livestock so we can pick it up in the freezer section. That is what we are talking about.
Of course, that cost gets passed down from the farmer to Canadians, and unfortunately we have seen grocery costs skyrocket due to poor Liberal management and terrible policies, such as the carbon tax. Some 20% of individuals are skipping meals. Food banks are serving people at an astronomical rate, more than ever. Canadians are finding it difficult to make their way to the end of the month while still being able to feed their families. They can expect in 2023 that their grocery bills will go up by another $1,100 thanks to the Liberal government, the carbon tax, the mismanagement of the overall economy and out-of-control spending.
However, that is not where the Liberals want to stop. They also want to go after fertilizer use. Of course, we are talking about farmers who are already trying to run a business and are using fertilizer with great care, making sure their input costs are minimal by not using very much. Fertilizer is expensive, in case the folks across the way did not know, so farmers want to use as little as possible to get the greatest yield possible.
The Liberal government feels they need to be punished for that. How dare farmers want to feed the country. How dare they want to feed the world. How dare they want to increase their yield. However, the Liberal government goes after fertilizer use and penalizes the farmers for it.
Meanwhile, the cost of living continues to increase. Canadians continue to pay the price. Farmers continue to be demonized instead of celebrated as the incredible people they are.
Today, the motion before us calls on the government to dare to lean in and understand the act of farming, to dare to understand the impact of their policies on the Canadian people and to give them a break for the sake of families, for the sake of seniors, for the sake of those living with a disability and for the sake of each and every woman, child and man across this country. They deserve a break.
1369 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
History seems to be repeating itself. Canadians will recall, but here we are again. Having debated Bill C-10 last spring, we are now debating its replacement, Bill C-11. The new heritage minister will try to tell Canadians that he has fixed the problems that existed in the former legislation. However, this is an extremely misleading statement.
My time is short, so I am going to cut to the chase. The government claims that the bill is about support for Canadian culture and levelling the playing field. I would like to see Canadian culture promoted and celebrated, so let us explore that for a moment.
I have two questions. First, is the bill about meeting Canadians where they are at in the 21st century and celebrating the amazing work being done by digital first creators to produce Canadian content and enhance culture in their very own unique way, or is the bill about the government imposing its definition of Canadian content in order to fulfill a government-driven agenda? Second, will the bill truly level the playing field, or will it be used as a cash grab in which those who have worked hard to expand their viewership and generate revenue are forced to subsidize the traditional media industry, which is producing content for which there is little to no demand? I realize that these questions make the government uncomfortable, but they must be asked in order to understand this legislation.
My grandparents were not required to subsidize horse and buggies when cars became an alternative. Society moved forward in an innovative way, because it just made sense.
In effect, Bill C-11 would put in place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which will govern how easily creators, those who post, are able to make their content accessible online to those of us who view it. In other words, it would impact what Canadians can and cannot access. It would be an act of censorship.
The Internet is a vast, infinite and magical space where all Canadians, no matter their background, are able to post and engage. In the new public square where we engage with one another, we do it through writing, audio and visual arts. For many Canadians, socializing online is the new norm. If passed, Bill C-11 will thwart our freedom in this new space.
Again, the minister will try to tell us that all the problems have been fixed. He will point to convoluted parts of the bill in order to try to prove his point, but here is the thing: If the minister is telling the truth and has nothing to hide, why is the bill not crystal clear? Why is the Liberal government choosing to use muddy language by placing exceptions within exceptions in order to confuse people?
There are many flaws in Bill C-11, but I will focus on three of them today: the first is the overabundance of power that it would place in the hands of the CRTC, otherwise known as the “Internet czar”; the second is its negative impact on creators; and the third is how it negatively impacts viewers.
If passed, the bill will give the Internet czar, the CRTC, almost unlimited power in order to regulate the Internet. Talk about an attack on freedom. The CRTC could have been given very specific, very narrow guidelines, but the government chose to give it free rein to amend, to exempt, to include. The Liberals claim that bringing more government intervention, and this is an interesting one, will boost Canadian culture, but that is not true. I mean, tell me a time in history where more red tape and regulation has increased innovation, incentivized artistic creation and brought about prosperity? Members cannot, because it does not, ever.
Let us talk about creators. One of the biggest complaints that we heard from digital first creators last time was that the bill would regulate their content online. Members can think of TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, podcasts, YouTube and, yes, even cat videos. Now, the minister will claim once again that he fixed it by adding section 4.1(1) back into the bill, but the problem is that section 4.1(1) is immediately followed by subsection 4.1(2), which creates exceptions that nullify 4.1(1). It is pretzel logic. It is confusing and purposefully muddy.
Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He seems qualified. He has pointed out that, under the act, digital first creators can be described as broadcasters and therefore forced to comply with the CRTC regulations.
In other words, essentially any audiovisual material could be brought under the scope of this bill, not just large streaming platforms, but even individuals who use music. The member opposite actually even clarified this earlier in her own speech.
This means that TikTok videos, which essentially always use music, and YouTube videos, which mostly use music, will in fact be captured under this legislation. This means creators, right off the top of their revenue, will have to pay 30% into an art fund. They have to pay in, but they do not get to pull out.
It also means that the content of digital first creators will be assessed based on how Canadian it is. The CRTC, the Internet czar, will of course make the conclusion. That material will then be promoted or demoted accordingly. The minister will try to tell Canadians that what I am saying is not true, that only big companies, such as Netflix and Disney, will be caught by this legislation, but if that is the case, I would again ask the government to clarify that and to say it outright. It does not. The bill does not. It is purposefully muddy.
Let me talk about the negative impact that the bill will have on viewers, members, me and Canadians. Imagine going on YouTube to look for videos on Black voices but being shown instead a bunch of videos on hockey in Canada, having never searched for hockey before, and all of a sudden those are the videos that are being fed to you. That would be extremely frustrating.
What we are talking about here is discoverability. It is the use of algorithms to make some content accessible and other content not. It bumps it up or down. Sometimes it can be found on page 1. Sometimes it is found on page 53. Currently YouTube carries material based on a person's individual preference. It bumps it to the top of the page if a person likes it, if maybe they have watched similar videos in the past.
This legislation would force content, so-called Canadian content, in front of the eyeballs of Canadians at the expense of showing them the content they actually really want. It totally disrespects and disregards Canadians' freedom, choice and desire to watch certain things over others, all because the government has an agenda.
Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch. That desire, that free will, should be respected. I have not even addressed the problem with the definition of CanCon, which is absolutely ludicrous. Let us talk about that for a moment. CanCon, or Canadian content, is that content that the government would actually be putting at the top of the page.
A bilingual Canadian sitting in his Montreal condo producing YouTube videos about maple syrup and hockey, all while using the Canadian national anthem in the background of his video, would still not get counted as Canadian content. Can members imagine that? In fact, based on the definition of CanCon, the only ones who will receive the government's stamp of approval are members of the traditional media.
The CRTC will define who is in and who is out, who gets noticed and who does not, who gets to be on page one and who has to get bumped to page 53. An individual's preferences are inconsequential, and the government would now decide.
In Canada, we are punching above our weight in what creators are able to produce. It is absolutely jaw-dropping. They literally share their talent with the world. It is incredible. Lilly Singh, a famous YouTuber, has pointed out, “creators who have built their careers on the Internet need to be consulted on these decisions.” She went on to say, “In trying to do what seems like a good thing - highlighting great Canadian-made content - you can unintentionally destroy a thriving creative ecosystem.”
Morghan Fortier of Skyship Entertainment is so eloquent when he put it this way, “In Canada, digital content creators have built a successful thriving industry on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export a huge amount of Canadian content to the rest of the world.... They've done this through their entrepreneurial spirit, their hard work and largely without government interference or assistance.
“This achievement should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.”
Bill C-11 is presented as a means to support the future of the broadcast industry, but it completely ignores the global reach of Canada's digital success stories in favour of an antiquated regionalized broadcast model.
Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital first creators. It is a direct attack on our choice as viewers. It is actually a direct attack on the advancement of arts and culture in Canada in the 21st century. The bill needs to die 1,000 deaths.
1616 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 1:16:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your new role in the House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
As this is the very first opportunity I have had to rise in the House, I would like to start off with some quick words of thanks. It is an incredibly humbling and exciting honour to stand here, to sit here and to be a representative for my constituents here. From the bottom of my heart, I wish to express just how grateful I am that my constituents have renewed their support in me.
My favourite thing about running a campaign is the amazing volunteers who come alongside to support me. I am talking about those who give their time, talent and money to invest in my success. To them I also wish to extend a very sincere thanks.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Those are the words permanently etched into the stone over the west window of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill. The words are strong and they are true. Humans have this incredible ability to dream, cast vision and inspire. They should have the ability to pursue those things. The throne speech is usually the vehicle used by the prime minister to communicate and provide hope and optimism for the Canadian people. Sadly, this was not the case this time.
I was anticipating a detailed plan in four specific key areas that I believe every single federal prime minister, regardless of political stripe, should be prioritizing if they wish to lead well. Here they are: one, keep the country united; two, ensure Canadians are kept safe and secure; three, facilitate an environment of economic prosperity; and four, advance Canada's place on the world stage. To the detriment of Canadians, however, all four of these points were largely ignored in the document that was read in what I would call a monotone manner by the Governor General. Perhaps she simply read it in that tone in order to match the lackluster content that was within.
Before the budget was tabled, my constituents shared with me that they were hoping to see a real plan to reopen the economy and restore hope and confidence in our future as a great country. Those who are unemployed were hoping to see a plan that created new jobs and opportunities for wealth creation. Those in the oil and gas sector were hoping to see support for this world-class industry. Those in the agriculture sector were hoping to see a little something for them. A nod of appreciation would have gone a long way, but there was nothing. Local businesses that are on the verge of permanently closing their doors were hoping for a carefully thought-out plan, not for more handouts, to get back to normal. Sadly, they had no luck.
The government cannot replace a healthy economy. No matter how hard it tries, government spending will never outperform or do greater good—
505 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
