Ted Falk

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member touched briefly on the compounding effect of the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very different than the GST. The GST has input tax credits and the tax itself, so the consumer only ends up paying a one-time 5% tax. However, the carbon tax is a compounding tax: tax on the carbon tax, then carbon tax on carbon tax. Could the member explain a bit more on how that has a very damaging effect on Canadians and really propels inflation?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2023]

With regard to COVID-19 vaccine safety and the messaging on the government's webpage titled "Vaccination and pregnancy: COVID-19": (a) what is the scientific basis for government officials' statements that COVID-19 vaccines are categorically safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women; (b) did Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), or the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) identify a need for observational studies regarding potential vaccine-related health outcomes in breastfed infants and toddlers as a result of exposure to vaccinated mothers or their breastmilk to detect safety signals of concern, and implement necessary precautions, and, if so, what are the details of all such studies, including those that the government relied on, including, for each (i) who conducted the study, (ii) the methodology, (iii) the findings; (c) if the answer to (b) is none, why were no such studies required; (d) did HC, PHAC, or NACI study or review studies on the impact of the vaccines on menstrual cycles, and, if so, what conclusions or estimates were reached in relation to the number and percentage of recipients whose cycles were impacted; (e) what is HC's response to the peer-reviewed article by Thorp & Associates, titled "COVID-19 Vaccines: The Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes and Menstrual Function", and what changes, if any, were made to public vaccine guidance or advice as a result of the study's findings; and (f) does the government acknowledge that for certain individuals or age ranges, such as newborns, the risks associated with the vaccine outweigh the potential benefits and, if so, for which individuals does the government recognize that this situation may apply?

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that question requires a comprehensive answer, but I will try to make it brief.

The member raises a good point. How will these smaller platforms benefit from this legislation? It is going to be difficult, because embedded in this legislation is that the negotiations between these big tech giants and news media outlets are going to be done in secret. Therefore, the question remains of whether these small news generators in smaller communities will be able to afford to have the information they are producing clicked on or listed on the big media platforms. I think that the cost to these small media outlets is the big question this piece of legislation does not address.

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member for the Bloc raises a very important issue. I think of the small periodicals in my riding. I think of the Southeast Journal, The Clipper, the Niverville Citizen and even The Carillon. These are not the media outlets that are going to benefit from this piece of legislation. The member asks, rightly, what our solutions are. We are going to come up with solutions, and we are going to announce them in our platform in the next general election. Canadians are going to be incredibly impressed, and we are going to implement those solutions as soon as we get elected.

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, every time the member for Kingston and the Islands stands up after one of my speeches, I am just looking forward to the question. I know it is going to be a lob, so I am teeing this one up.

Conservatives absolutely believe that tech giants need to pay their fair share. What we do not believe is that governments should be picking winners and losers. In this legislation, 75% of the winners will be made up of these three companies: the CBC, Rogers and Bell. That is not fair.

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity again to address Bill C-18 in the House.

I am pleased that the Senate has exercised its judgment as the place of sober second thought and sent this legislation back to the House for further work.

Right off the top, I will say that there are three areas where all members of the House are in agreement. First, we all agree that there should be some mechanism whereby tech giants are taxed, and that we do so in a way that does not negatively affect Canadian consumers. Second, we all agree that there must be some mechanism in place to deal with online misinformation and disinformation. At every one of our offices, we deal with this issue on a daily basis. Third, we all agree that we must create a framework to regulate AI or artificial intelligence.

We agree on these three principles. The issue, as is usually the case in the House, is how we go about doing that.

How do we make tech giants pay their fair share? How do we regulate information online and, perhaps more pertinent to our conversation today, particularly in light of the events of the past three years, who determines what is misinformation? How do we differentiate between fact and opinion?

In our postmodern world, or what some have called a post-truth world or a world where truth has become a relative or entirely subjective concept, how do we, as governments and media, differentiate and adjudicate between truly evidence-based information versus that which is driven by ideology and political expediency? Finally, how do we even begin to deal with the challenges posed by artificial intelligence?

In the Bible, we have the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have the story of the Tower of Babel, where people believed that by building a tower to heaven, by storming God’s dominion, they could themselves become God. We have heard the story of Pandora’s box, or jar if we want to be exact, and the story of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods.

Almost every ancient civilization has some story of humanity receiving or taking knowledge from the gods, knowledge they were not ready for, that they were ill-equipped to handle and that ultimately leads to chaos.

With the advent of the technological revolution and, in particular, artificial intelligence, humanity has come full circle to a truly frightening reality. It is good that we are beginning to address these important issues. It is good that we are at least largely agreed on what those issues are.

Unfortunately, as is always the case with the government, the flaw is in the details. There is a reason that the Senate sent this back. It could have chosen to just approve it. It sent it back and that is because this legislation, like its sister legislation Bill C-11, is deeply flawed.

Conservatives maintain that the government has misled Canadians about what the true objectives of Bill C-11 are. In short, it gives the government the ability to control what people see and post online. That is why Conservatives have committed to repealing it. I suspect that we will do likewise after Bill C-18 has been passed, and we are sitting on the other side of the House.

Like Bill C-11, at first look, the legislation looks fine and prudent, but then one starts to dig a little deeper. The flaw is in the details. One of those first pesky details is the issue of accountability. The government says that tech giants need to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians, which is the pot speaking to the kettle.

I agree. I am pretty sure my colleagues agree with this statement. Tech giants, like all multinational, plutocratic entities, do need to be held accountable. If they wish to operate within the jurisdiction of a country, those individual nation states must find a way to temper the unprecedented power, influence and wealth these entities have amassed.

When it comes to transparency and accountability, the government has very limited credibility. How the government can have the audacity to tell anyone they need to be more accountable and transparent shows its utter lack of self-awareness and the level of narcissism we are dealing with here because there has never been a government that has been so secretive. This government has so actively shunned accountability.

When, in the long line of scandals and failures of the Prime Minister and his ministers, has even one of them ever taken responsibility? I think the record clearly shows that the answer to that question is never. I could stand here and, one by one, list the scandals and failures of this government, but we would be here all night, and I know we have other work do get done here.

There is always an excuse, always someone else to blame. The government never takes responsibility. No minister has ever been held accountable. Actually, that is not quite true. We may remember that the Prime Minister did fire a minister. What did she do? Did she fail to execute the basic functions of government? Did she create chaos in her department? Did she misappropriate funds? Did she lie about a matter of national security? No, she did not. Her crime was that she tried to hold the Prime Minister accountable. She was the first indigenous woman to be minister of justice and attorney general, and the Prime Minister fired her because she refused to be party to his misdeeds or to capitulate to his unlawful demands.

When it comes to accountability, the Liberals have no credibility. Therefore, how can Canadians trust the Liberal government to enforce the very thing that the government itself refuses to do? That same statement from the heritage minister’s office states, “Canadians need to have access to quality, fact-based news at the local and national levels, and that's why we introduced the Online News Act.” I agree with that sentiment. The problem is that it is really difficult to take the government at its word when it has spent the past seven and a half years subsidizing media outlets that are friendly to it, intentionally parrot government talking points as “facts” and brand everything else as “misinformation”.

The Liberals gave legacy Liberal media $650 million and continue to fund the CBC to the tune of $1.24 billion per year. Why do they need to do this? First, it is to buy positive coverage, and they have gotten excellent bang for their buck. There is always a cost-benefit analysis, and the benefit seems to have been worth the cost of taxpayers' dollars. Second, they have done so because those friendly outlets are dying. They are trying to prop up a dying industry.

With the exception of a brief renaissance during COVID, when flush with Liberal government dollars, the media spouted government talking points and spread fear and division among Canadians. They have ceased to be relevant. We can bemoan that fact all we want, but I would ask, as I believe my colleagues have adequately done, what members' primary source for their news and entertainment is? Chances are that it is something online. I think this is really at the heart of the issue. I would pose this question to the government: What is a better indicator of what people actually believe, what they say or what they do? I would argue that it is what they do.

In the same way as the government’s track record, its behaviour has shown that it does not really believe in accountability. It also does not care about what the media prints or posts as long as it is favourable to the government. However, Canadian consumers have also spoken by their behaviour. If we were to ask a group of Canadians to define “Canadian content”, it would be difficult to get consensus. The platforms that Canadians subscribe to, the shows they watch and the content they consume would probably not be considered Canadian content by all Canadians.

Maybe listening to Canadians rather than dictating to them what the government wants them to see as Canadian content would poise the government to better serve Canadians. If we were to ask a group of Canadians how important Canadian content in media is, I suspect about half would say it is important. If we were to ask that same group how much Canadian content they actually consume, what platforms they subscribe to and what shows they watch, the answer would most likely be pretty different.

Perhaps, for once, rather than dictating to Canadians, the government that supposedly represents their interests ought to take the novel approach of listening to them. While it is listening, it should ask them what they think about the carbon tax, the cost of living, this so-called green and woke agenda, their media priorities and whether they feel safe on the streets. This is Conservatism 101. The market is the best indicator of what Canadian people want, because it is driven by Canadian people. Rather than accept this reality, the government that thinks it knows better than Canadians how to spend their money, consistently pushes back against the market to achieve its own ideological purposes.

At the end of the day, the market determines the viability of a product, including media, so we need to address these issues. Conservatives agree with that, but the weaknesses of this legislation are secondary to the sad reality that the government lacks credibility. It is a serial offender, guilty of doing the very things it claims this legislation would address.

Only a new, Conservative government would be able to address these important issues, and we will address them head-on—

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I think I was the culprit. I do apologize as I did receive a few texts during my speech.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we have seen examples of people who have been involved in Iran and in the IRGC who have made their way to Canada, finding sanctuary and safe haven here, and our government has refused to act, refused to sanction them and refused to remove them from our country.

This legislation would clarify that, if there is evidence to show that people have been involved in some very torturous activities or brutality against their own citizens, they could be sanctioned. Once they are sanctioned, this legislation would now give the government the ability to remove them from the country. That was a great question.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

There have been lots of talk and lots of lip service around sanctioning individuals, but there has been little action. The member for Edmonton Strathcona previously mentioned that the number of assets that have actually been seized as a result of these sanctions is fairly minimal.

We did read in the paper earlier this week that a cargo plane has been seized at the Toronto Pearson international airport. The Antonov 124, which I have noticed there in my travels over the last year, has now been seized by the Canadian government, so it looks as though maybe the government is actually doing something about its sanctions.

[Immigration and Refugee Act, June 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize that the hon. member is the co-chair of the committee studying human trafficking and smuggling. I compliment her for the tremendous work she does there.

Specifically in regard to the Uyghurs in China, this is an issue that has been raised in the House many times before. One of my constituents has worked very closely with the Uyghurs in China and has seen, first-hand, how they have been rounded up and put into re-education plants, how their children have been forced into slavery in factories in China, and how we, as Canadians, have been buying some of those products. I think the media has done a pretty job of identifying some of the products that have been subsidized by forced labour.

We, as a country, need to take a hard look at that, and, where necessary, we need to sanction the individuals responsible for enslaving people.