Tracy Gray

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely part of the concern. All parliamentarians were not privy to all of that information, and the general public is not. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, a lot of the people who have been reaching out to me from the public have been doing their own research and following this. We have to know that people are well versed and well researched. They are not people who are what some of the other members might say are part of our base. These are everyday people from all walks of life who are as concerned about this as we are and part of it is because of this code of silence and non-transparency.

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, as we know what even led us to this point was proposed section 4.1 being taken out originally, which started all of the concern. Of course, we had the heritage minister give this whole pretzel of information that was more confusing every time he spoke. I know there has been a number of amendments and recommendations, but as I said earlier in my speech, all of the recommendations did not even get discussed or fully debated at the committee. There were a number of other potentially very good recommendations. Sometimes it is not what is in there, it is what is missing. That is a big part of what has brought us here to our discussion today.

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I quoted several people who are experts in their field and, as I mentioned, a former head of the CRTC. I do not know how much more relevant we can get than that, considering that this bill gives a lot of authority to the CRTC without laying out what all those parameters are and that is part of the big concern with this bill. It has not laid out specifically what all of those parameters will be, so that is one of the biggest concerns with this bill.

[Broadcasting Act, June 14th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

What could be more fitting for a bill that could limit the free speech of Canadians across the country and what they can see online, than a government trying to use tactics to limit debate in Parliament? I have heard, loud and clear, from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country, and we have heard, loud and clear, from experts from coast to coast to coast how poor Bill C-10 is.

Canadians do not want this deeply flawed, speech-limiting, online-viewing-limiting legislation. It is truly shocking that the government would attempt on more than one occasion to limit debate on a bill that has been so divisive. The government keeps raising the bar on what divides us. If the Liberals cannot even tolerate dissenting views in committee and in this House, how are Canadians supposed to expect them to act differently and respect their views online should this legislation come into force?

Back in May, I addressed this chamber through Statements by Members, outlining the overwhelming opposition to this troubling bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. I outlined how hundreds, and by now hundreds more, have written me with their valid and real concerns. Residents in Kelowna—Lake Country have strong reservations about the government's attempted overreach to regulate individual Canadian Internet users and what they can hear and see online, concerns shared by University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. Dr. Geist is not just some newcomer to the field. He is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. Not only could he be considered an expert, he is a vocal and non-partisan critic who has been fighting for the rights of Canadians by speaking out against this dangerous legislation.

Dr. Geist has outlined how, despite the empty words on the part of government claiming otherwise, this legislation, “represent[s] an exceptionally heavy-handed regulatory approach where a government-appointed regulator decides what individual user generated content is prioritized”. Dr. Geist has also called the recent manoeuvring by the Liberals at the heritage committee to effectively cover this legislation in a dark cloud of secrecy “disturbing”, when the committee began to vote on undisclosed amendments without any debate or discussion.

All of this came on the heels of the Liberals' teaming up with the Bloc earlier this month to severely limit debate by using an archaic parliamentary process, manoeuvres that have not been seen in over 20 years in this House. The Liberals may claim that this legislation is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, but that has not stopped them from using procedures to ram Bill C-10 through Parliament without proper debate or discussion. We heard in debate today, from my colleague the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, how 40% of Bill C-10 was not even discussed or debated at the heritage committee with respect to other recommendations.

The voices of my constituents will not be silenced. Residents of my riding in Kelowna—Lake Country from all walks of life have written to me ever since the introduction of this draconian bill, stating, “Censoring free speech or shutting down debate is not acceptable.”

Another wrote, “People should be able to speak freely on all platforms.”

One wrote, “It is shocking that the current government has the audacity to even propose something as limiting to free speech as Bill C-10.”

Further comments were also expressed: “We must not tolerate this kind of censorship of free speech in a free country” and “Bill C-10 is the most appalling assault on free speech we have seen from any democratic government”.

I agree with my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country, and that is why I am here today.

This legislation is an unacceptable attempt by the Liberals to target the freedoms of individual Internet users in Canada. It raises significant concerns about the ability to preserve net neutrality, which is an important principle that ensures free flow of content and that no content on the Internet is favoured over another. Net neutrality is basically the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications, regardless of their source and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.

The bill before us would give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, absolute control with no clear parameters. Furthermore, this legislation would give sweeping powers to the CRTC to regulate the Internet, including individual users with no clear guidelines for how that power would be used.

What are Canadian creators saying about this proposed legislation?

Well, J.J. McCullough, a well-known Canadian YouTuber, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post. Mr. McCullough has nearly 300,000 followers on YouTube and, by his own research, he says that this makes him the “1,483rd most popular Canadian YouTuber”. I would say that provides a pretty clear picture of the success that Canadian content creators have online. He goes on to note that there are “...well over 100 Canadian YouTubers with subscriber counts surpassing 3 million — a combined audience larger than the population of Indonesia”. He mentions how well Canadian YouTubers have done without this legislation. Mr. McCullough also notes with real concern that “If Bill C-10 passes, satisfying the needs of audiences — the formula that has produced countless Canadian YouTube success stories...may soon take a back seat to satisfying government regulators”.

His trepidation is justified, as the Liberals rejected an exemption to individual users who upload videos to social media and even took it a step further by promising to introduce a new amendment to regulate apps. We have also heard that digital first creators have not been consulted. It is smoke and mirrors to say that Bill C-10 is about charging big Internet companies to get tax dollars.

On Bill C-10, Conservatives propose to protect individual users and small players in the market by exempting streaming services and social media users with lower revenues. The Liberals rejected this common-sense compromise. The minister ignores these concerns despite the stated purpose of the bill being to promote Canadian content and support, not burden, Canadian creators. However, if history is any indication, the minister does not care about factual and thoughtful points such as these. His party only cares about shutting down debate so its members do not have to listen to the mounting evidence against this proposed legislation.

It is not just the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country, Canadian content creators or Dr. Geist who are speaking out against Bill C-10. A former commissioner of the CRTC has said in an interview that Bill C-10 “...doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy”. This was from a former CRTC commissioner, and if anyone can speak on how the CRTC could interpret its new powers, he would be the one to ask.

The government claims that Bill C-10 is a priority and that is why it is using the tactics that it has chosen to employ. My Conservative colleagues and I will not apologize for doing whatever is necessary to defend the right to free speech and free viewing of the content of Canadians.

I think it is important that we examine exactly what has taken place in this Parliament leading up to this moment. We must not forget that it was the Liberals who prorogued Parliament to escape scrutiny for their ethical scandals. When it is something they want, they will ram it through in any way they can using procedures like the one we recently saw around Bill C-10, which we have not seen used in the House for over 20 years. There were amendments at committee that were never even read and debated. The Liberals had four years as a majority government and have been in power in this Parliament for almost two more.

We will be back here in September as, after all, the Liberals definitely do not want an election, right? So, I will not apologize for standing up for Kelowna—Lake Country and I will not apologize for standing for free speech and for net neutrality. This is deeply flawed legislation that should be deeply troubling, and it is troubling to the core to each and every one of us to consider here today.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I will be presenting the dissenting opinion today on behalf of Conservative committee members on the Standing Committee on International Trade. I want to thank the analysts, clerk and staff of the committee in working to prepare the report on select impacts of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, also known as ISDS.

Attached with the report is the dissenting opinion from Conservative members and in this we highlight the role ISDS still has in trade agreements and between countries in depoliticizing the process of dispute settlement. We hope the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of this when it comes to settling investment disputes. We heard from many experts, academics and lawyers in the field during our study on why ISDS mechanisms were still relevant in today's world.

When studying these selected impacts of something as important as ISDS, it is important that we paint a comprehensive and well-rounded picture on ISDS. I hope the government will continue to consider the full picture as it looks to negotiate trade agreements in the future.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, we know that small business is the background of our economy in Canada. As a former small business owner, I am very aware of working in retail and where some of those fees are.

The government really does not understand small business, and we see that in a lot of its policies. We even see that in how it talks about legislation. It is small business owners who are putting themselves on the line every day. They are working seven days a week and taking risks, and the government really does not understand how small businesses operate and the needs of small business. There are a lot of different ways that we need to look at supporting small businesses.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, that is a very rich question considering that it took two years for the budget to come forth.

Last year we had a COVID committee, which was not really Parliament. We were not able to debate legislation, nor debate at all, and there was no opportunity for opposition day motions. Then we had the prorogation of Parliament, and many committees were not sitting for a big part of last year. It is clearly the government that has delayed any legislation and work in the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, our leader has made comments on this already. When we originally approved a lot of the programs last year to help businesses, the major focus was to help small businesses and get the money out the door. We have now seen that a lot of those programs have not worked for a lot of small businesses, and our focus has absolutely been on making recommendations to the government on a number of those programs and amending them.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-30 on behalf of my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. Like so many things with the Liberal government, this omnibus budget is unfocused, leaving many of the most affected by the economic crisis behind.

The budget outlines bold new ideas to build back better with new debt of $354.2 billion last year and $154.7 billion this year. This is a plan where every person in Canada would owe over $13,000, or over $52,000 for a family of four, in new debt in just two years. Not to mention the years of needless deficits leading up to this, which the Conservatives have been warning about since the government took office in 2015. However, I believe Canadians are smart enough to realize that the budget is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Liberals to buy their votes on the backs of their own borrowed money.

It was in this House, when the budget was first tabled, that a Liberal member alluded that this budget has something for everyone. This is not true if someone had just opened a new business. For a year now, the Conservatives have been bringing forth the issue that new businesses, which do not have any sales track record, are not eligible for many programs, and the Liberals have ignored this.

This is an election budget, not a budget focused on economic recovery. It is clear that what the Liberals claim is stimulus is more about their own partisan priorities, rather than about maintaining jobs, creating jobs, helping businesses the most affected by the pandemic, or growing the economy.

Despite billions in new spending, this budget still leaves people and small businesses behind. The budget lists the establishment of a $500-million tourism relief fund as well as $100 million for Destination Canada to market Canada. This amount is a drop in the bucket of a $157.4-billion budget and is an insult to the tourism industry. Tourism was the first affected, and it will be one of the last to recover, yet tourism only garnered one and a half pages in a 750-page omnibus budget document. In my riding, tourism small businesses are a backbone of our community.

Lou is owner of Cheers Okanagan Tours in Kelowna—Lake Country, a tour and shuttle company offering winery tours, ski shuttles, airport transportation and other tour options. They are ambassadors for our local attractions. It has seven vehicles it has had to continue to store and pay for. Lou told me that once her business is back to pre-pandemic levels, it will take three years for her to recover her small business.

Terri, owner of Vacanza Destinations in Kelowna—Lake Country, a boutique travel tourism company, has had no revenue in over a year. She has gone substantially into personal debt. In order to keep her business ready to turn back on, she has to retain all her licensing, liability insurance and many other expenses, costing thousands each month. Terri told me that once business is back to pre-pandemic levels, it will take up to five years for her to recover.

Terri and Lou are two women who have built up their small businesses with hard work. The Liberals say there is money in the budget for people to upgrade their transferable skills in order to work in different industries. Maybe some people, like Terri and Lou, like their jobs, the careers they have built and the relationships they built. It is not up to the Liberals to pick what jobs they like and which ones will survive the pandemic. Tourism is not a priority for the government, nor is it reflected in the budget.

The budget details how arts, entertainment and recreation are the largest affected sector for people losing work in February 2020 compared to 2021, yet there is just slightly over one page out of the 750-page budget referencing these sectors, which are sectors important to Kelowna—Lake Country. The budget outlines approximately $450 million in funding, but much is spread over three years. Musicians, and those involved performing arts, festivals, arts, culture and sports, are some of the hardest hit. This budget is a disappointment.

As I mentioned earlier, the Liberals say there is money in the budget for people to upgrade their transferable skills in order to work in different industries, but why should people not use their talents? Why should they be forced to not work in their field?

I will say it again, it is not up to the Liberals to pick what jobs they like and which ones survive the pandemic. The spending in this budget is unfocused and does not address the hardest hit industries, such as arts, culture and recreation, as priorities.

Aerospace is another major employer in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. The budget states, “In 2019, aerospace contributed more than $28 billion to Canada's GDP, directly and indirectly supporting 234,500 jobs”. The budget also correctly notes, “Highly dependent on purchases from airlines hit hard by the pandemic, the sector is facing reduced demand and a longer path to recovery, relative to other sectors of the economy”.

The government seems to think an appropriate level of support for an industry it states has been hit hard by the pandemic is $250 million over three years across the entire country. Realizing how meagre this truly was, the Minister of Finance tried to spin this underwhelming investment by stating, “This is in addition to the $1.75 billion in the Strategic Innovation Fund”. However, that fund is over seven years. This is another example of an unfocused $154.7-billion omnibus budget.

There are a number of measures in this budget that I could support. However, in the 750-page omnibus budget of debt and election-style spending on the backs of future generations, it is not the real plan that Canada desperately needs. Extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy are both welcome ideas. This, in addition to a number of measures to continue helping individual Canadians and industries, I can absolutely get behind. However, this budget leaves out important sectors that have been the most hurt.

In this budget, the Prime Minister would add more to our national debt than all other previous prime ministers combined. The biggest source of federal funds this last year was not tax revenue or lenders, but central bank money printing. The $303.5 billion of new printed money in 2020 is not free. Devaluing the dollar risks increasing inflation, meaning everyone pays more for things such as housing, food and transportation.

Statistics Canada announced the cost of living went up 3.4% in April 2021 alone. This has been especially apparent in our housing market. Canadians faced a nationwide housing affordability crisis, and the budget completely ignores first-time homebuyers and the housing needs of young Canadians.

On May 26, the finance minister would not answer a simple question of how many units the rapid housing initiative has built. The housing problem is compounded by the recent government announcement of new mortgage qualification rules. Experts are saying this puts home ownership further away for many.

My colleague, the Conservative shadow minister of housing from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, led an opposition day motion yesterday which had many common-sense solutions to address the growing housing and affordability crisis. Instead of embracing these ideas, which have been suggested by experts, the Liberals voted it down, doubling down on their failed strategies.

The budget also fails to meaningfully address the parts of our economy that allow for growth without the need for hands-on government intervention and billions of dollars in borrowed money. Our economic engines of natural resources and trade can create jobs and help pay off our massive debt. Canadian exports are responsible for one in five jobs and nearly a third of our GDP, yet trade is barely sprinkled around the budget.

For the Conservatives, not only does trade represent a guarantee of economic security for millions of workers, but it is also an important aspect of food security and, especially, our best way to combat debt.

The Liberal government is mismanaging the trade file, and the problems keep getting worse.

It is clear that the government has no real plan to secure our future through an economic recovery where all sectors and all regions are firing on all cylinders. I simply cannot support a budget that is unfocused, fails so many who have been the most affected, and burdens future generations with billions of dollars in crippling debt.

[Forestry Industry, June 7th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I would say the Liberals are all talk and no action, but there is not even talk.

On Friday, I questioned the trade minister, and she was unable to say she had taken any action whatsoever to raise this issue with her U.S. counterparts. She could not point to a single meeting or call that had taken place since the May 21 tariff increase announcement, despite claiming it was her “top priority”.

When will the minister stand up for Canadians and start doing her job?