So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24

Apr/30/24 2:25:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Chair is acting in a disgraceful manner—

14 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mar/21/24 1:39:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was born and raised in southern Alberta on a small farm by two hard-working, common-sense Conservative parents. I was the middle of five children. My dad is a tradesman. He works hard with his hands. He helps build homes, unlike the Liberal government. He works long hours. Most days, he was up before the sun was, and he came home after the sun was already gone. My mom was a horse enthusiast. She also was an entrepreneur and had a few side hustles. She also worked long hours. She loved her family, and she loved to be involved in the community. From a young age, it was modelled for me that we have to make a positive difference and that we have an opportunity to contribute in a positive way to the world around us. I can remember weekends being spent either going to the soup kitchen and supporting those who did not have access to a meal, helping to clean garbage from ditches in order to clean our community or supporting a neighbour by painting fences or helping to build various things on their property. My family raised me to know that it was good to give back, that it was good to make a difference and that it was good to be invested in one's community. Things were not always easy in our home, growing up. I can recall my parents having numerous conversations around finances and making ends meet. I remember them talking about whether they would be able to afford the entire mortgage payment some months. I remember them talking about the types of groceries we would have to choose, and those were hard choices. I remember them talking about whether they had enough money to be able to send us with a little extra cash for a hot lunch at school. There was tension, there was instability, and there was definitely hardship—

324 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Feb/13/24 7:06:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to point to the supports his government has offered to those with mental illness. What we heard in this place, in Parliament, from witness after witness is that the supports are inadequate. People desperately need more support. On this side of the House, I think of my hon. colleague, whose name I am not allowed to use, and his tremendous effort in advocating for support for those who live with a mental illness and his tremendous effort with bringing in a three-digit suicide line to help prevent suicide, and of course we know that is most often associated with a mental illness. Not only are we going to make tremendous efforts when we are in government, but the reality is that we do not wait. We are already making a meaningful difference for Canadians.

143 words

Context: House Hansard - 257 - Nov/28/23

Feb/6/24 6:15:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in this place and to address a very important issue. That issue comes down to affordability. It comes down to the well-being of Canadians from coast to coast, to those who live in rural areas, in urban areas, in my province of Alberta and in Atlantic Canada. The debate tonight has to do with being able to buy the very basics of life, including fuel for a person's vehicle so that they can drive to work or take their kids to sport practice. It is a conversation about being able to put food on the table, whether that is fruits, vegetables, grain or dairy. Whatever a family chooses to consume, they should be able to afford those choices. Furthermore, Bill C-234 is about being able to heat one's home. I do not know about others, but where I live in Alberta, we can get temperatures down to -53°C with the wind chill. I cannot imagine trying to heat my home with a heat pump, as the Liberals would like to suggest is possible, nor can I imagine relying on wind or solar as my sole source of electricity, because we had a proof point, just a few weeks ago, that it just does not work. Instead, what people rely on to heat their homes in my part of the country is largely natural gas. The Liberal government has attached something called a carbon tax to those very necessities of life, whether it is the food we eat, the fuel that we put in our vehicles or the energy that heats our homes. The carbon tax is punitive in nature, and it is driving up the cost that Canadians have to pay just to survive. Bill C-234, which we are discussing here today, has to do with taking the carbon tax off the fuel that farmers use for the very necessities of the jobs they do. Imagine putting all of one's time and energy and all of one's labour into producing food for the nation of Canada and for the entire world. Imagine doing that, and then imagine having a government in power that, rather than expressing gratitude toward them, actually punishes them. That is exactly what the Liberals have done for the last eight years. The carbon tax is extremely punitive in nature. It goes after those individuals working hard to produce food. It does that by applying this tax to the very necessities of production. Whether it is using natural gas to heat a barn in order to keep chickens alive or dairy cattle alive, or whether it is using propane to be able to dry grain, let us say, those are things farmers do on a day to day basis. Those things are necessary to produce food for Canadians and for the world. Those things are required to keep us, as humanity, alive and to drive our economy forward. Rather than celebrating the incredible contribution that farmers are making, the Liberal government has chosen to go after them and to be extremely punitive. On this side of the House, members got together and came up with an idea. That idea is brilliant. It is supported by producers all across the country. That idea is to remove the carbon tax from fuel, from natural gas and from propane so that farmers can produce food at less expense. Here is what happens when farmers are empowered to produce food with little expense attached to it. Those savings get passed on to Canadians. Then, when Canadians go to grocery stores and buy food for their families, they are able to pay a little less. However, when the government attaches that tax, it actually drives up the cost of food, so Canadians then have to spend more. What will happen when Canadians have to spend more? Headlines across this country will show us exactly what will happen. Families are struggling. Millions are lining up at food banks every single month across this country. In my riding, in Lethbridge, Alberta, the food bank use has doubled under the Liberal government. It has doubled. It is not just folks who maybe do not have homes or who live in low-income housing. It is folks who have full-time jobs and live in middle-class neighbourhoods. It is seniors who rely on fixed incomes, who have worked incredibly hard for 65, 75, maybe 80 years of their lives. It is the students studying at Lethbridge College or the University of Lethbridge who are investing in their education and, because of the government, cannot afford to make ends meet, so they have to go to the food bank. It is the veterans who fought for this country, the country that we love. It is the men and women who sacrificed a great deal, and are now not supported by the government, who are lining up at the food bank. That is a problem that was created under the watch of the Liberal government, but it did not have to be that way. The government has created policy after policy that has punished Canadians and held them back from achieving greatness, from being able to bring in income and stretch it to cover their costs of life. It is the government that has prevented people from being able to do that. On this side of the House, there is a concerted effort to give Canadians control of their lives back. There is a concerted effort to make sure they can afford the very necessities they require. Of course, top of mind is to axe the tax, and that is exactly what Bill C-234 would do. Bill C-234 is all about getting rid of this punitive tax, taking it off of farmers and allowing all Canadians to benefit because, when farmers benefit, so do the people who go to the grocery store to buy food. That is what this bill is about. Here is what the government did. This bill was discussed in this place and then went to the Senate, which started out with some good common-sense thinking. At first, it seemed that the majority in the Senate was going to support this bill because it just makes sense, but then the Liberal government, in particular, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment, caught wind of this. What did they do? They got on the phone, asked for meetings and applied pressure. They applied pressure to the senators, who are supposedly independent, and eventually those senators caved. The bill ended up being gutted to the point of being meaningless, and that is what we are now debating in this place. Canadians deserve better. For starters, they deserve better behaviour from the government, and second, they deserve better policy. They deserve policy that would allow them to work hard for a paycheque, bring that money home and be able to cover the cost of things they need to purchase, whether it is groceries, fuel for their vehicles or their heating bills. Canadians need to be empowered to cover those expenses, and a big part of that is axing the tax. In my riding, a producer was willing to share his natural gas bill with me. He has a few different parts to his farming operation, but just for one of them, the beef operation, he spends $62,000 a year on the carbon tax. He was willing to share some his bills with me, which I reviewed, and month after month the carbon tax is more than the amount he spent on the actual natural gas used. That is crazy. It is ludicrous that a farmer would have to spend more on the tax than the product itself. What also needs to be driven home is that we have to remember that all Canadians, including farmers, are not just paying the carbon tax, but the tax on top of it. They are paying a government tax and a provincial tax on top of the carbon tax. It is the greatest scheme for the government to make money, but it is on the backs of Canadians, and the government should be ashamed of itself. Conservatives are going to work hard. We are going to fight for Canadians. We are going to make sure their paycheques stay powerful. We are going to axe the tax.

1409 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 230 - Oct/5/23

Nov/28/23 1:44:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am standing today is that last week, we had an opportunity to debate a common-sense Conservative bill that would remove the carbon tax from all farm fuel. That debate took place in the House, then moved to the Senate and then it stalled. The reason it stalled is that the members opposite from the Liberal Party of Canada asked the Senate to stall it, to delay, to use every tactic in the book to try to prevent the legislation from going through. That is incredibly sad. What that means is farmers will not benefit from a carbon tax being taken off of such things as drying grain, harvesting their fields or heating their barns. Those are common functions for farmers, the people who produce food in our communities. I am here to advocate for those individuals who produce our food, but I am also here to advocate for Canadians at large, those who buy food. I was first elected about eight years ago. Shortly after I came into this place, I had a conversation with a member opposite. That member took an interest in my riding which, of course, is in Lethbridge, Alberta. It is a beautiful mix of a small city of about 105,000 people and a county, which consists of a lot of farmland and those who know how to make that land produce something incredible that is called food. The member asked me questions about my riding. He said to me, “That farmland that you have there, they are just growing for fuel, right?” I said, “Excuse me?” He said, “Yes, they are just growing for fuel, right?” I said, “No, they are growing food.” He said, “Oh. Normally we just go to the grocery store now for food. We do not really need that.” It is interesting. In that moment, I realized just how out of touch Canadians at large are with where their food comes from, how it is produced and how important it is that we support those who produce it. It is easy to think that food just arrives on the grocery store shelves in a pretty package and maybe some nice marketing tools are used. We get to pick up that food, bring it home and consume it. We forget the process or maybe we never knew the process that it underwent in order to get there. In my riding, I have the privilege of being able to see that process from start to finish. I watch as those farmers actually take the seed off their field. I watch as they actually process that seed and prepare it for use in next year's field. Then I watch as they till the ground and put that seed into it. I watch as they use water to care for it. I then watch as that seed produces plants which continue to flourish and eventually are harvested. Eventually, that harvest is taken, dried and processed. It is either shipped out like that or it goes for further processing locally. Eventually, it becomes food that is sold in our grocery stores. Much of that is sold right here in Canada in our grocery stores, but sometimes it goes to other places around the world. Canada has this incredible gift called land. We have this second incredible gift called farmers. They are the individuals who work incredibly hard and with great innovation to make sure that Canadians are fed. I will talk a little bit about these people in my riding, because if we care to learn, we can. These are individuals who are incredibly community-minded, who work collaboratively together. These are individuals who are incredibly hard working. These are individuals who care deeply about animal health and welfare. These are individuals who are the original environmental stewards. They are the ones who take care of the water, land and air. They have done that from the beginning, because they know that to take care of those things is to take care of the food they produce and to be good at what they are doing. They are the folks who thrive in spurring on innovation, in bringing forward new technologies and great business practices. These are the individuals who are incredibly generous. In my riding, it is these folks who have funded community swimming pools and community recreation centres. It is these individuals who have paved park pathways and created parkways. It is these individuals who have invested in our local hospital. It is these individuals who have given tremendous amounts of money to the underprivileged, especially those who are homeless. It is these individuals who have helped to fund programs through our college and through our university. It is these individuals who are making a tremendous difference in our community day in and day out. These are the individuals the government insists on punishing through a punitive carbon tax. It is these individuals who feed Canada and feed those around the world. To those in my community and to those who like to eat, we celebrate these men and women. We look at them as the individuals they are: people who are doing something wonderful, not only for my local community but for the nation and even the planet. The member's opposite see these individuals as if they are the enemy. It is a mystery to me. Again, we are talking about women and men who are not only caring for us by producing food but taking care of the environment by sequestering carbon, by making sure soil health is good, by making sure the air quality is excellent and by making sure water is stewarded. These are the folks who get zero credit for those actions and instead are frowned upon for what they do and how tremendously wonderfully they contribute to society. The government has decided to apply a punitive carbon tax, and yes, it is applied to farmers from the moment they put the seed into the ground to the moment they harvest to the moment food goes on to the grocery store. The carbon tax does not stop. It keeps going on and on, until finally it is picked up by the consumer at the store. The truth is that even then it does not stop, because the consumer pays the carbon tax at the till and pays the carbon tax again when they put the food in their trunk and drive it home. They then pay the carbon tax again when they turn on their stove and make that food. It just keeps going. We are asking for the carbon tax to be taken off farmers. We are asking that this House exercise some common sense and make the determination that farmers are incredible people who deserve to be celebrated, not punished. It just makes sense. When farmers have this punitive carbon tax attached to them, the carbon tax eventually makes its way to the consumer. When the consumer has to pick it up, they are detrimentally impacted too. There are more Canadians than ever before lining up at food banks. In my community of Lethbridge, since 2019 the number of people going to a food bank and relying on it as their primary source of food has doubled. The biggest group of people there, which is growing, is those who are working a consistent job. They are not able to make ends meet anymore, because under the government, things have become too expensive. They are desperate for help. They are desperate for a government to listen to them. They are desperate for a government to understand their concerns. A woman recently reached out to me. She is in her sixties and has a disability, so she lives on a very small amount month to month. It is $1,700. We can imagine what it might be like to live on $1,700 a month and pay rent. She cannot just live anywhere because she is in a wheelchair. She has to pay extra because she needs to make sure it is wheelchair accessible. This an individual who then has to pay for her food, transportation and her phone. Then she might even want to engage in the human dignity of buying a birthday gift for someone once in a while. This is an individual who has to cut back on even the essential things of life. The reason people are having to make these difficult choices among medication, healthy food, paying rent and paying their heating bill is that the government has made life so unaffordable. The ask on the table today is very simple, very straightforward and very tangible. It is to axe the tax on farmers. When we axe it there, we bring it down everywhere else and all Canadians benefit. That is what we are asking for today. It is common sense for the common people.

1500 words

Context: House Hansard - 222 - Sep/21/23

Oct/5/23 1:39:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked who is benefiting from the government's spending. Is it the already wealthy and the big corporations? At the end of the day, I am not here representing them. I am here representing everyday, hard-working Canadians. I fly under the Conservative banner, not the Liberal banner, so I cannot help but be on the side of the everyday person, the person who works hard, gets up in the morning and thinks about their day ahead and hopes they are going to be able to make it through. I am on the side of the person who drops their kids off at school and then rushes off to work; maybe leaves during lunch hour in order to pick up a couple of things and do a few errands; runs back to work and finishes up their full day; runs to day care to grabs their kids; runs home; makes a meal; puts the kids in bed; plops on the couch for half an hour and then heads to bed to wake up the next morning and do the same thing all over again. That is—

192 words

Context: House Hansard - 213 - Jun/14/23

Sep/21/23 1:39:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, if I were eating in a restaurant, my server brought out a dish and maybe there were a couple of hairs or a fly in there, and I would send it back, I would not say to sprinkle some cheese on it and it would be fine. I would ask that the meal be tossed and that a new meal be brought to me. The same is true with the bill. Let us toss it, let us restart and let us get it right.

86 words

Context: House Hansard - 193 - May/9/23

Jun/14/23 11:31:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, the point is that ultimately, at the end of the day, Canadians do desire choice, and unfortunately this bill just does not make that provision. I will point out another flaw that needs to be pointed out in this bill, and that is overall access. We know that already there are many individuals who, when they know they are expecting or oftentimes even before they know they are expecting, but perhaps anticipating, will put their family on a wait-list in hopes of being able to have a spot, but what we know with this legislation is that it actually favours those who already have a child in care. As such, rather than being able to provide for those who would be entering into the need for care or those who would be most vulnerable or most in need, this legislation favours those who already hold a spot. Who are those who are most likely to already hold a spot? It is often those who already have a bit of money or wealth behind their name, because they have already secured one or maybe even two spots for their kids ahead of time and now they have a spot for the next child as well. That is a problem, because it is actually those new parents or the most vulnerable who need to be able to access those spaces. That is what has been promised by this legislation, but it is structured in such a way that it is not what actually what ends up being delivered at the end of the day. I think it needs to be said that, certainly, making sure that a child is looked after in a caring, loving and kind way is top of mind for parents, and it is probably one of the things that stresses in particular moms to the greatest extent. It matters, but in order to be able to provide parents with that peace of mind and that security, one has to not only provide the accessibility, but also there has to be a provision of choice. A parent needs to be able to make that decision on their own, knowing that they are entrusting their child to the person or entity of their choice. Again, this is where this legislation simply falls short, because it does not provide for that. There is a lack of accessibility and a lack of choice. Right there, we have two fundamental problems or massive flaws with this legislation. One mom shared this: “I would love to see initiatives ... that support kids being raised in their own homes with their parents past maternity leave - it doesn't feel like much of a choice right now, the government is only focusing on 'one type' of parenting model. Not all parents want to place our kids in childcare or schools so young but with the lack of support, we can feel we have no [other] choice.” In other words, sometimes parents do want to pick an elder, a grandparent, a friend or a neighbour, but under this legislation, what this woman is expressing is that she does not feel she has that option. The question also needs to be asked: What about those who work shift work? Maybe a parent goes to work super early in the day, or maybe they work super late into the evening. Then, what are their options? Again, this legislation fails to address that. Further to that, many of those who are indigenous in my riding have come, talked to me and said they would like their children to be cared for by an entity that takes their culture into account. Again, this legislation does not actually provide for that. What about those who come from a religious background or a faith background, who want their children cared for according to their values or according to their ways of life? Again, this legislation falls short. Instead, it is a one-size-fits-all approach, and it just simply does not work. I could talk a bit more about the fact that there is this tremendous amount of burnout that takes place in this sector; I could talk about the fact that there is a massive labour shortage in this area as well; and I could talk about the fact that my colleagues at committee actually brought these concerns forward and asked for them to be addressed, and the government ignored them. Again, it is legislation with a whole lot of promise but no premise. It is an over-promise and an under-delivery. It is altogether disappointing. The fact of the matter is that we have seen this in many ways from the government. In eight years we have seen it blunder one budget after another and drive our economy into the ground. We have seen what it has done with health care; we have seen what it has done with folks who are dying from the opioid crisis; we see that consistent mismanagement across our country across different sectors. Why would child care be any different? It will be an abundant number of promises and an under-delivery of services. Canadians will be left in the cold. I should also highlight that it did not need to be this way. My colleagues offered several helpful amendments around protecting choice and making this accessible. My colleagues stood up for parents and for their needs. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals voted against my colleagues, which is sad and is to their shame. When people say the Conservatives do not really support child care, that is not true. We support the principle. We just believe that it should be rolled out a whole lot better. When we form government, we look forward to doing this much more efficiently, much more effectively and in a much more parent-centric way than what it currently is.

986 words

Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23

May/9/23 4:10:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21 Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, one of the observations I have made during my time in this place is how much the Liberal government loves to hinder Canadians and their freedoms. We saw Bill C-11 get rammed through the House. We more recently saw how Beijing interfered in our elections in this country. An hon. colleague of mine, and his family in Hong Kong, were threatened and intimidated, and the government did nothing. We have seen the government move time allocation on bills over and over again to ram them through. Specifically, with Bill C-21, we see a government that wants to take away rifles from hunters, again wanting to thwart the freedom Canadians have, and not entrust them with the tools for a basic lifestyle. I am curious as to why the government is so distrusting of Canadians.

138 words

Context: House Hansard - 155 - Feb/7/23

Mar/27/23 12:29:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member across from me just referred to me as if I was wearing a tin hat. I referred to amendments brought forward in the Senate that are on paper. To refer to me as if I am some whacked out individual wearing a tin hat is totally inappropriate and an attack on my character, which is inappropriate in this place. I would ask for him to show some decency and offer an apology.

81 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22

Feb/7/23 2:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister's carbon tax, Canadians continue to struggle. They continue to struggle to be able to heat their homes, to be able to feed their families, to be able to commute to work. After eight years, things are not looking better. Recently, a 70-year-old woman came into my office with her heating bill in her hand and tears down her face because she cannot afford it. She has turned her thermostat down to 17°C. It is -36°C outside. My question is very simple: Why will the government not show a little compassion and take the tax off so that Canadians can keep the heat on?

119 words

Context: House Hansard - 105 - Sep/29/22

Nov/24/22 5:22:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-219

Madam Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to have the opportunity to stand in this place to speak to Bill S-219. As mentioned, the bill calls for national ribbon skirt day to be declared as a part of our commemorative activity on January 4 of each year. It is an opportunity for so much more than just giving importance to a piece of clothing. It is what that piece of clothing or that article points to. It is what it symbolizes. It is what it represents. It is the power within, so it is that I wish to speak to today. I believe that to gain an appreciation for the bill, we really have to understand a bit of history. There is a recent past, there is a distant past, and then there is today and a way forward. If members will bear with me, I would like to just go through a few of my reflections on those items. A few years ago there was a young girl by the name of Isabella Kulak. She was a young girl from Cote First Nation, which is in Saskatchewan. She was a riveting young woman and continues to be, and she wore a ribbon skirt to school one day. Unfortunately, an educator commented negatively and told this young women that it was an inappropriate item to wear on what was called “formal day”. This girl, who was about eight years old at the time, I believe, was berated and shamed in front of her peers and her teachers, which is devastating for a young girl to experience, especially not just the action of the berating and the shame but the fact that it was so deeply attached to her culture, her history and her way of life. The fact that she would be attacked on that, of course, had an impact on this little girl's heart. Her parents very bravely took this story and, with courage, shared it on social media. From there, it spurred a movement. It captured the attention of not just a few within her city or neighbourhood, but it actually managed to capture the attention of a country and a nation. What is so powerful, and why I am perhaps brought to tears a bit with this story, is that this young girl demonstrated courage and, supported by her parents, she was able to draw attention to something that is so important in our country right now, which is the disadvantage indigenous folks find themselves in and the fact that there are still these persisting inequalities within Canadian society. As much as it is a ribbon skirt, it is so much more that we would be commemorating through the bill before us and its call for January 4 to be declared national ribbon skirt day. I wish to share the words of Isabella with the House today and with the Canadian public. She wrote a letter to the Senator from whom the bill originated. Isabella wrote: My name is Isabella Susanne Kulak and I would like to start off by telling you what the ribbon skirt means to me. The ribbon skirt represents strength, resiliency, cultural identity and womanhood. When I wear my ribbon skirt I feel confident and proud to be a young indigenous girl. When I was 8 years old I was gifted my very own ribbon skirt from my auntie.... I wore it with pride and honour to my traditional ceremonies and pow wows. On December 18, 2020 it was formal day at Kamsack Comprehensive Institute where I attend school, so I chose to wear my ribbon skirt just like my older sister Gerri. When I got to school a teacher assistant commented on it and said it didn’t even match my shirt and maybe next formal day I should wear something else like another girl was wearing and pointed at her. Those words made me feel pressured to be someone I am not. I eventually took off my skirt as I felt shamed. Today I no longer feel shamed and I feel proud and powerful enough to move mountains because I know that people from around the world are standing with me. I am very grateful to be Canadian, to be Indian and to represent my people by wearing my ribbon skirt proudly! Thank you to Senator McCallum and to all the people who supported me from around the world, from Canada and from all the First Nations across the nations of the earth. Sincerely Isabella It is so important to read her words into the record. I could stand here and talk about the importance of this day or the significance of the skirt, and I will comment on that to some extent, but what is so much more important are the words of this girl who initiated the movement. To Isabella and many indigenous women across this country, the ribbon skirt serves as a powerful declaration of what it is to be female, what it is to hold a feminine spirit: the strength, the power, the beauty, the resilience, the ability to give and maintain life. These are all parts of what it celebrates. The ribbon skirt is about indigenous culture, tradition, history and a way of life. The skirt's meaning, yes, does vary from person to person and, of course, the way that it is put together and the colours that are used also vary from person to person. It is meant to be just as unique as the individual who wears it. Because of Isabella, other young girls and women of all ages are now once again able to wear the skirt as a declaration of their power, their resilience and their cultural identity. That is something that is incredibly powerful. I would like to talk about the more distant past, and it is again with some sorrow that I do because Isabella's actions are particularly powerful when considered against the backdrop of what has happened in this country. In 1885, the potlatch ban was put in place. It actually prevented indigenous folks from being able to wear ribbon skirts. The fact that this eight-year-old girl bravely put one on and wore it to school is profound. Ribbon skirts, along with ceremonial items, were outlawed in that original ban. For us as a culture to once again be able to embrace that and say with a united heart that we accept them and celebrate them is so important today. While national ribbon skirt day is an important opportunity to celebrate indigenous women and their incredible strength in the face of colonialism, more has to be done. It is one thing to commemorate culture, history, a way of life and the power that is within women, but it is another thing to take concrete action. In this place, we have heard the government talk a lot about missing and murdered indigenous women and, in fact, three years ago a report was done. It is significant. We are missing an integral part of our population in this country. What action has been taken? Further to that, we have folks in this country who are living without potable water. The members opposite enjoy talking about throwing money at the problem, but getting it resolved has not happened. We have a housing issue in this country. Up north, there are 15 people living in a household. There is mould growing up walls. There are conditions that are not okay. What are we doing about that? Furthermore, there are so many mental health concerns that have been expressed by indigenous communities. They are asking for assistance. They are asking for treatment with regard to addiction. These folks are also asking for a commitment to moving forward in reconciliation. It takes so much more than just promising funding or delivering good talking points. As much as this bill is about the ribbon skirt, as much as it is about the courage of Isabella, as much as it is about celebrating culture, history and identity, it is also about calling this place to a way forward, a way forward that allows for economic prosperity among indigenous folks in Canada and allows us to move forward truly reconciled and united toward a vibrant future.

1387 words

All Topics

Sep/29/22 4:30:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today's motion is about putting people first. It is about Canadians. It is about seeing them. It is about hearing them. It is about making sure they are understood. It is about doing no harm. That is what today's debate is all about. I am advocating for Canadians. This should not be something that is controversial or that causes disgraceful comments to be made within this place from the opposite side, but somehow it is. The last several months have left Canadians absolutely dumbfounded at the federal government's lack of care, concern and compassion toward them. As food prices have continued to rise astronomically due to inflation, as energy costs have put people in detrimental places, the Prime Minister is choosing to increase the cost of living for Canadians through one policy implementation after another.

140 words

Jun/17/22 10:16:24 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, the speaker opposite is being incredibly disingenuous right now. I did filibuster at committee. I filibustered because the members opposite, the Liberal members at the table, brought forward a motion that was shutting down debate. I did not want debate to be shut down because I believe Canadians deserve to be heard. Unfortunately, the Liberals planned it very strategically to have the minister sitting at the table at the same time, so it appeared as if I did not want to hear from the minister. Of course, Canadians who were watching know that is not true, and it is incredibly disingenuous of the member to suggest that.

109 words

Jun/17/22 10:14:37 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, as we went through this process at committee, there were only five meetings held in total where we heard from witnesses. This is a piece of legislation that takes the Broadcasting Act, which is normally only applied to radio and television, and applies it to the Internet. It is a massive change to the way we do broadcasting in this country, or what is termed broadcasting. For the committee to only have five opportunities to hear from witnesses when there were more than 100 who asked to be heard is inexcusable. There still remains more than half of our witness list who never got an opportunity to have a seat at the table and have their voices heard. If someone were to ask how much is too much, and imply that to give more voice on this would somehow be hindering the process, I would say no to that, as this is a democracy. We want to hear from people.

162 words

Jun/17/22 10:03:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

moved: That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 4. She said: Madam Speaker, considering the current trend of the current government, I certainly do not take it for granted that I am able to stand in this place and freely deliver a speech in the House of Commons, particularly when I am critiquing government legislation. Bill C-11 would put the CRTC in charge of regulating the Internet. That is what we are discussing today. Former CRTC commissioners and other qualified critics have spoken to this legislation and have made it clear that it is an overreach and a violation of Canadians’ right to freedom of expression. From the beginning, I have been a vocal opponent of this bill and I have laid out my case for that. However, today I will remind Canadians and this House of the concerns I hold, shared by colleagues on this side of the House. Because of my outspoken nature on this bill, I have been ridiculed, criticized and even called names by those across the way. That has been hurtful and it has been harmful, but I have proceeded. The reason for this is that I am not elected to serve the government. I am not elected to make sure its legislation gets through. I was put here by Canadians for Canadians, and it is with them in mind that I stand in this place. It is with them in mind that I also fight against this incredibly draconian and regressive piece of legislation that attacks their charter rights as Canadians. There are two things I wish to address today: one, the process that was followed with this legislation; and two, the content. Let us start with the process. I would be remiss if I did not mention the travesty that took place this past Tuesday. While most Canadians were sleeping, the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage met and were forced to vote on amendments without them being read into the public record, which simply means that numbers were given and members were asked to vote. The public was unsure of what we were voting on and what it meant for them. There was zero transparency. There was no debate, no discussion and no questions. “Just shut up and vote” was the message given. The process was cloaked in secrecy and was an inexcusable assault on democracy. Having been forced through the committee, the bill is now before the House and will soon be forced on to the Senate. Let me dive into the content of this bill. The heritage minister has been extremely misleading. He has told Canadians that more government control over Internet content will somehow promote Canadian culture and help artists. This could not be further from the truth. My Conservative colleagues and I have met with industry experts and with digital-first creators, those who produce content for TikTok, YouTube, etc., and they have dispelled these myths. I would like to use their voices here today in order to defend their cause. Oorbee Roy, known as Aunty Skates on TikTok, is a 47-year-old South Asian woman from Toronto. She made it clear that her success is based on freedom and not control. She said: That I'm not the right fit is a story I've been told my whole life. I'm too brown. I'm a nerd. I'm too old. I'm female. I'm not feminine enough. I'm not the right demographic, but I've never been the right demographic. My voice has been suppressed far too many times. That's not an easy thing to do, because I have a pretty loud voice. Somehow along the way, I discovered a platform that allows me to tell my story as I see fit in my own voice. Other people are indeed interested in my story. Somehow this tall, brown, old and somewhat-out-of-shape mom who skateboards resonates with people all over the globe. Authentic, inspiring, genuine content—that's Canadian content. Canadian YouTuber Lilly Singh explained it best when she said, “For Canadian creators who don't fit the mainstream mould, the openness of YouTube provides the opportunity to find their niche among billions of people.” Again, freedom is what leads to success. Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, said, “We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.” She went on to say, “If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations.... This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.” If Bill C-11 passes through the Senate, it will not create a level playing field. Instead, many digital-first creators will be harmed as the government, through the CRTC, picks winners and losers. Not only that, but, in the name of protection, the CRTC will build a wall around digital-first creators, and this wall will actually prevent them from being able to reach a global audience, which is what they depend on for their success. We should know that our Canadian digital-first creators are amazing and they are achieving tremendous success around the world. Their success, however, will be severely thwarted by the bill. Scott Benzie, from Digital First Canada, explained: The bill has the intent of promoting Canadian content to Canadians. While that's admirable, most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery.... [L]ocal discovery...is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance on TikTok, Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry. Let us talk further. Let us talk about freedom and choice, values that all Canadians hold dear. Right now, virtual codes, known as algorithms, are set up on the Internet to show Canadians more content that they love. Personal choice is honoured in this process. Bill C-11 would change that. Instead of using algorithms to give individuals more of what they want, the government will insist that YouTube and TikTok and Google use algorithms to give more of what the government wants Canadians to see. It is incredibly dictatorial. It is dangerous. Jeanette Patell, from YouTube, explained: Bill C-11 could deeply hurt Canadian creators and viewers [in other words, all Canadians]. For viewers who rely on us to serve them content that is relevant to their interests, artificially forcing an open platform like YouTube to recommend content based on government priorities would backfire. Matthew Hatfield, from OpenMedia, gave a great analogy: We would never consider a situation where the Canadian government would go to Canadian bookstores and say, “We've thought about what Canadians need, and these are the types of titles we want you to put in your front window.” However, through the discoverability requirements we have in this legislation, that seems to be what we're doing.... It's inappropriate. It's an overreach. If we're supporting Canadian content, it needs to be in ways that are respectful of and responsive to what people in Canada want. Let us be very clear. The bill is not about protecting culture. It is about giving the government more control over public discourse, the things that we can see, post and hear online. To have a government agency regulate the dissemination of information online puts Canada in step with places like North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. The current chair of the CRTC, Mr. Ian Scott, has confirmed that this is the case. He has said that user-generated content, in other words our content, my content, anybody’s content, will be wrapped up in the bill, but then he goes on to say not to worry, because even though he is given those wide-sweeping powers, he will not use them and we should just trust him. If he is asking us to trust him, why not just take those provisions out of the bill? That is exactly what these amendments would do. We are asking that those powerful provisions that allow for an abuse of power be taken out of this bill and that Canadians be respected. The best way to promote Canadian culture is through the protection of free speech. Giving Canadians the freedom to create, express their views, and speak freely is what supports the proliferation of our rich Canadian culture. Our culture is held within the Canadian people, all of them. However, the government has grown far too comfortable with taking control. As I come to my conclusion here, I wish to thank all of the digital-first creators who weighed in and expressed their views. I also wish to thank the industry experts and the freedom advocates who worked tirelessly to expose the danger of this legislation. I want to thank the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have had their voices heard. It is for them that I contend today.

1587 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 48 - Mar/29/22

Jun/17/22 10:02:36 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

moved: That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

11 words

Context: House Hansard - 48 - Mar/29/22

Mar/29/22 3:42:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that there are amazing artists in this country. Of course there are. We are Canadian. We have 37 million incredible people who call this place home. Of course there is extraordinary talent. Of course there are artists across this country who deserve to be celebrated and deserve to be promoted, but that does not mean that the government intervenes. It does not mean that the government gets to pick winners and losers. It does not mean that the government gets to go after those individuals who are using non-traditional platforms in order to achieve great success and take money from them and demote their content in order to give that money to traditional broadcasters and traditional artists and promote those artists at the expense of the digital-first creators. This is nonsense. Instead, yes: We should be celebrating the amazing artists that are coming out of this country in every facet, whether it is through traditional broadcasting systems or through digital-first creation. Yes, let us celebrate them, but what I am saying today is that the government does not need to get its sticky, grimy hands on this.

196 words