Gerald Soroka

[Broadcasting Act, June 15th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the whole point is that we are trying to make sure we are protecting the little guy. We want to make sure that we are here protecting everyday Canadians, whether they are producing their own content or downloading their own content. We want to make sure that their freedoms and expression are not censored.

[Broadcasting Act, June 15th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, in my speech, that is exactly what I did talk about. One of the residents in my riding, an immigrant, was persecuted in another country and did not have the ability to have free speech. That is why we want to make sure that we do not have that kind of censorship here, regardless of what kind of cultural background one comes from.

Many people come to Canada to make sure they have their rights and freedoms protected. That is why we are very concerned about this bill and are making sure that the censorship is not allowed.

[Broadcasting Act, June 15th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am not disputing that there are many good points to this bill and many parts of the amendments brought forward do help give a better explanation as to what is going on. There are a lot of unknowns with the bill where it is not clear and concise as to what the regulators would or would not be able enforce.

The CRTC could potentially have quite wide-sweeping powers. That is why we are very concerned. There is not a clear definition as to how much the CRTC can be regulated. What kind of rules will there be for content providers that the CRTC may have in the future? That is what we are protecting. We are making sure that there are not these things in the legislation that can allow for many different types of content to be censored. The way it is written, it does allow that, and that is what we are opposing.

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

On February 5, I spoke to Bill C-10 before it was referred to the heritage committee on February 16. Here I am speaking to Bill C-10 again, a few months later, now that the bill has returned from committee. Most times when a bill returns from committee, we see a couple of amendments here and there to fine-tune it before passing it along to the Senate, but with Bill C-10, it is not a few changes here and there. This bill is completely different from its previous form.

What is even more abnormal about this is the fact that so many of the amendments came from the Liberals, the ones who introduced the bill in the first place. The government owes it to Canadians to explain why so many amendments were introduced after the fact and why it is pulling every trick in the book to try to push legislation through without proper debate and while ignoring legitimate concerns.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is using tactics to make people believe that Conservatives are anticulture and standing in the way of Bill C-10, when in fact, many experts who testified at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage agree this bill is flawed and needs further review.

Protecting Canadian content is important for Canadians, but what good do rules around Canadian content do, if Canadian content is not properly defined. The minister recently demonstrated in committee that even he does not know what classic Canadian movies actually count as protected Canadian content under this legislation.

Over the past month I have received countless emails and phone calls from constituents in fear of the government's legislation. They want to know what they can do to stop it. One man even said to me that this legislation embodies the same police-state-like control he emigrated to Canada to escape.

The question I get most often is, “Why?” Why does this legislation contain an amendment giving the CRTC this much power. Why is the government trying to push this through so quickly? Why does the government think it has a mandate to police the Internet?

Conservatives recognize that the Broadcasting Act is in need of updates. No one is arguing against that. When Conservatives raise legitimate questions about user-generated content being affected by this legislation, instead of providing answers, the minister diminishes our concern and proceeds with his carefully scripted paragraph about why the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated, even though we are already agreeing that it needs to be done.

I have to point out the irony in the fact that we are being censored here in the House of Commons on a debate regarding censorship. Instead of allowing Bill C-10 to go through full and proper review, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion to shut down debate on Bill C-10 early, and effectively censored our debate on censorship.

Here we are, around midnight, mid-June, speaking for the last time to a bill that would have the power to limit our freedoms and could change the way Canadians are able to use the Internet. The government imposing time allocation on this bill, which is fundamentally flawed, is wrong because it attacks freedom of expression. The minister is attacking our freedom of expression as parliamentarians, who are just trying to do their jobs. Instead of telling us Conservatives that we are preventing work from moving forward and that we are anticulture, the government members should be explaining to Canadians how they can possibly justify this time allocation motion, when the committee still has many amendments to review. This is deeply concerning to not only me, but also to many Canadians.

I also want to talk about the precedent legislation like this could create for the future. In a society that values freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Bill C-10 would leave the door open to a massive abuse of power concerning the rights of Canadians.

It is not enough for the minister to stand in the House of Commons and claim this bill is not meant to target ordinary Canadians. Words spoken by the minister mean nothing if they do not coincide with the wording of the actual legislation.

The amendment regarding user-generated content aside, Bill C-10 creates a regulatory mess of a streaming and broadcasting industry in Canada. There are real harms that could come with this legislation as it currently stands. This bill is far broader than many Canadians realize, and certainly broader than the minister has claimed. This has led to a lack of understanding of the consequences of the bill as it relates to the general public.

With so many amendments being brought forward in such a short timeframe, it is hard for the public to keep up and stay informed. One thing we must always remember as parliamentarians is that we work for the people. It is our duty to keep our constituents informed and to seek their input on legislative matters. With this amendment being added, and this legislation being rushed through the legislative process so quickly, I fear many members will not have adequate time to properly inform and consult their constituents on this issue.

It is with extreme disappointment that I am speaking on this legislation tonight, knowing that so many voices have been silenced and important dialogue on this bill will not be heard. The government claims that limitations are integrated into this bill, so that it is not too overreaching.

The minister said in the House of Commons, “user-generated content, news content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation could be imposed.”

This claim made by the minister is false, as there is no specific economic threshold that is established by the bill, which means that all Internet streaming services carried in Canada, whether domestic or foreign owned, are subject to Canadian regulation. That would mean if someone has Canadian subscribers, this law would, regardless of where the service provider is located, apply to them.

The limitations the minister is referring to are that the bill gives the CRTC the power to exempt services from regulation. It also leaves it entirely up to the CRTC to establish thresholds for regulations once the bill is enacted. This is dangerous, and while I have confidence in the work that the good people working for the CRTC do, it is our duty to legislate, not the CRTC's, and that means properly defining the term “significant economic threshold”.

Bill C-10 now has over 120 amendments, of which about a quarter were put forward by the government itself, even though it wrote the bill. My Conservative colleagues at the heritage committee did everything they could to fix the problems with Bill C-10 in the time they had. My colleagues say that in review stage, the work at committee was going well and progress was being made. That is until the Liberals decided to bring forward an amendment to include social media.

This amendment was so large it changed the scope of the bill entirely. It was at that point people, including experts, former CRTC commissioners and thousands of Canadians across the country, started raising objections.

As I wrap up my speech, I am thinking of all the flaws contained in this bill and worry for the future of freedom of expression. While I do not suspect this bill was brought forward with malicious intentions, the wording in this legislation could set a terrible precedent.

It is okay for the government to admit when it is wrong and when it has gone too far. Now is the time for the government to acknowledge that it needs to take a step back, re-evaluate and correct the course.

[Yellowhead, June 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, last month the community of Tomahawk faced a wildfire. Preparing for the worst-case scenario, certain areas of the community were evacuated. From the start of the fire, food and monetary donations poured in and there were numerous offers to help transport and board livestock.

I am in awe at the strength of Tomahawk and the surrounding area, and proud to represent a community so dedicated to helping one another in times of need. This crisis brought the community together and perfectly showcases what it means to be an Albertan.

I would also like to congratulate all the 2021 graduates in my riding of Yellowhead, who have supported each other while doing part of their school year online. These graduates worked through the challenges presented to them and succeeded. I send my congratulations to the class of 2021 on their hard work and dedication. They should remember that this is only the beginning of what they will accomplish.

[Forestry Industry, May 28th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, recently, California and New York passed bills that target Canadian forest products. The bills these states passed are fundamentally flawed, will hurt trade, and condemn our forest industry, comparing us to other, much less sustainable forest industry product exporters, when in fact Canada has the most sustainable forest industry in the world.

Will the minister stand up for our forest industry, or will he let these states push us around, as he does with our energy sector?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 26th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, when I was mayor, as the member for Provencher mentioned, I knew that we could not run deficits as a municipality. We had to have a proper plan in place on what we were going to address and how we were going to see our future grow.

That is one thing that was missed in this budget. I was hoping with much anticipation, like many other MPs, that it was going to be a great budget that would show how we were going to progress into the future, how we were going to open up our economy and how we were going to create jobs. I keep saying the word “how”. It is a shame that we do not see how this is all going to be done. That is the challenge with this budget, and one of the many issues I have with it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 26th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. As my colleague will recall, when a motion was put forward in the House, the majority of MPs voted in favour of the increase, as he said, for our seniors, who built this country. We need to support them in their time of need, and without increasing their pensions, I do not see how they are going to survive as we proceed forward. I definitely agree with him. I voted in favour of that, as did the majority of the House, but the Liberals did not. That is one thing I do support.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 26th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that if the member had actually been paying attention to my speech, he would have noticed that I said it did not matter which political party was in power at the time; there would have been huge amounts of spending. Obviously, he must have missed that section. The money had to be spent at that time.

My concerns are about the late response by the Liberals toward COVID. They did not address the issues quickly enough by closing our borders. That was one of the issues I brought forward.

To conclude, I feel the Conservatives supported Canadians throughout this COVID situation, and if the Liberal member did not quite understand that in my speech, I apologize for his—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Liberal budget and raise concerns on several fronts. When I was elected in 2019, and in the years prior during the first mandate of the Liberal government, we saw deficit after deficit with no clear plan for balancing the budget. The grand plan for the budget to balance itself was failing. Now here we are a year and a half since the last election, and the $20-billion deficits we were concerned about then seem like a drop in the bucket compared with the enormous budget we are debating today. For years, the Conservatives warned the government about spending the cupboards bare when times were good, and now we are facing the repercussions of that.

The pandemic was unavoidable. No matter which party was in power, there would have been large costs associated with COVID. However, this brings to mind the famous saying that life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we respond to the challenges thrown our way.

I will take some of my time today to reflect on the failures of the Liberal government and the ways it was too slow to act, which cost Canadians dearly.

First, it was early January 2020 when the Conservatives raised concerns about COVID-19 and called upon the government to take action at our borders. It was not until late March, when numerous COVID cases had already entered Canada, that the government took action. This delay in action would cost us big time. As opposed to a proactive response to the pandemic, what we had was a reactive one.

Second, the government failed to implement and utilize widespread rapid testing. Widespread rapid testing would have allowed more businesses to stay open, as there could have been better testing and tracing. Instead, for the past year, businesses have been teetering on the edge between not being allowed to stay open at all or being allowed to open under strict rules.

Canadians are now 15 months into this climate of uncertainty, with the Liberals only making things worse by not providing them with a clear plan to reopen our economy. I was deeply disappointed when the government voted against our opposition day motion to provide Canadians with certainty and establish a clear plan to reopen our economy.

I believe $354 billion is a staggering number. That is how much debt the government has added to Canada's debt load for 2020-21 alone, bringing the total amount of debt added by the Liberals since 2015 greater than that of all other governments combined. Let us break that number down. The largest purchase that most Canadians will make in their lives is the purchase of a home. Currently, with rapid inflation in the housing market, the average Canadian home is worth $716,000. This means the homes Canadians spend the better part of their lives paying for could be purchased nearly 500,000 times over in this year's federal budget.

When I think about the deficits we are accumulating, what concerns me most is the fiscal mess we are leaving behind for future generations to deal with. The interest on our debt is forecast to be $30 billion per year by 2026, and that is with low interest rates. To put that in perspective, this budget commits $30 billion to child care over the next five years. In the same time frame, we could spend that amount five times over simply just servicing our debt. Therefore, it is extremely important that we return to a balanced budget as soon as possible, so that we are not further increasing what we are paying in interest payments and can instead put money toward helping Canadians get ahead.

A few months ago, I stood in the House and spoke to Bill C-14 and to my concerns with raising our debt ceiling to $1.8 trillion, an increase of $663 billion. My colleague, the member for Abbotsford, compared this to asking for a line of credit from taxpayers but not saying where that money will be spent. Now, in this budget, we finally have some answers as to where this money will be spent and where it will not be.

Alberta's oil and gas industry has once again been forgotten by the Liberals. In the 725 pages of this budget, the words “oil and gas” are mentioned only once in relation to the wage subsidy. While the wage subsidy has helped the sector through COVID, it is not what this sector needs to prosper, and the temporary wage subsidy does not address the root issue of red tape and government roadblocks. When our oil and gas industry does well, Canada does well, and as the most ethical oil producer in the world, we should be creating more economic opportunities for oil and gas by getting pipelines built and supporting our world-class technology and our emerging industry in carbon sequestration. This budget leaves behind the oil and gas industry and all the economic prosperity that comes along with it.

The Conservatives know that spending is required to recover our economy. We had a strong recovery plan after the 2008 financial crisis. We made targeted investments, got Canada's finances back on track and returned to a balanced budget by 2015. However, make no mistake: This budget is not the same thing. It does nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians. Instead, it presents a plan for a reimagined Canadian economy, as the Prime Minister put it. It is a plan that dabbles in risky economic ideas such as abandoning our oil and gas and natural resource industries, leaving our economy in a precarious position. This is not stimulus spending focused on creating jobs, but spending on the Liberals' partisan priorities.

When I talk about targeted support being needed, an area that comes to mind where this budget has a shortfall is tourism. COVID-19 has decimated the tourism industry in Canada, with many businesses on the brink, permanently closing or coming out of the pandemic with large debts. There is no doubt that the programs currently in place are helpful. However, I worry the $500 million allocated to tourism recovery is not enough, especially when the Liberals continuously fail to provide us with a plan to reopen our economy.

Canada's tourism industry has a similar GDP to that of the oil and gas industry, and while at least tourism, unlike oil and gas, is getting some money through this budget, $500 million is not adequate when I look at all the tourism businesses from coast to coast that need support. It is extremely important that we fully recover the tourism industry, especially in communities that rely on the industry as a significant part of their economy, such as the municipality of Jasper in my riding. Approximately 48% of the municipality's GDP was related to the tourism industry.

Another area of the budget that stuck out to me was the unfair and unjustified old age security increase for seniors over 75, as there was nothing for seniors aged 65 to 75, who have also been struggling throughout the pandemic. Statistics Canada recently reported that inflation has surpassed the Bank of Canada's 2% target and is now reaching 3.4%. Policies like the Liberal carbon tax and money printing have driven this inflation, and old age security payments must reflect that. Perhaps when we get to questions after my speech, a Liberal member can explain why they believe 65- to 75-year-olds are immune to inflation. It is far too often that seniors are emailing my office and saying they feel let down by the government's failures to support programs.

To conclude my remarks today, I would like to reiterate that I cannot support this budget because of the staggering deficit and the fact that the new spending in this budget is ideologically driven and completely abandons our oil and gas industry. This long-anticipated budget is a major letdown for western Canadians.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.