Kerry Diotte
Edmonton Griesbach, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“The United States has already raised concerns about discriminatory digital taxes and regulatory measures targeting American companies. The Liberals should be working to strengthen North American trade, not weaken it. Our economy depends on stable and predictable trade relationships.”
“We have repeatedly called on the government to remove all taxes on gasoline and diesel at the pumps to give some measure of tax relief to beleaguered Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals have only responded with half measures, including taking off a few cents a litre in taxes, but we know more can be done.”
“Canada should be attracting investment, not driving it away. Businesses need certainty. They need competitiveness. They need a government that understands economic growth. Instead, under the Liberal government, all they get is endless regulation, escalating costs and unpredictable markets.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are stretched thin. They are paying more for groceries, more for gas, more for rent, more for everything. Now the Liberals want them to pay more to stream their favourite shows and movies online.”
“That means higher monthly bills for Canadian families who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis the Liberal government created. The Liberals can try to dress this up in bureaucratic language. They can call it a contribution, and they can call it modernization, but Canadians know better.”
“This 15% tax hike places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services. Put simply, it discourages business investment in Canada and will further devastate Canadian film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto.”
The complete record
Every one of 109 lines we hold for Kerry Diotte, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. It has been criticized. The U.S. ambassador himself criticized this as a major irritant. This is not the time to further irritate our largest trading partner. We are lucky to be on the border with the United States of America in order to sell our goods to them. They are—”
“Mr. Speaker, that is the $64,000 question. Canadians just cannot afford another tax, and the Liberals keep heaping them on. Canadians are having trouble putting food on the table and paying rent, and now we get this onerous luxury tax, basically, that will also imperil negotiations with getting a free trade deal with the United States. It is double-trouble.”
“Mr. Speaker, no, of course we do not want to attack Quebec culture, but let us call this what it is. This is not an attack on culture. This is an attack on Canadians' wallets. It is one of the few pleasures that people seem to have these days. They can sit back and stream Disney+ and Netflix. The Liberal government wants to take even that small pleasure away from them, and that is just unconscionable.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is not alone, but that is hardly a bragging point. Saying other countries overtax their citizens, too, is not a bragging point. Whether we agree with the U.S. on certain things or not, they are our biggest trading partner. We need to get tariff-free access to United States markets. This is a major impediment and it is going to have absolutely terrible repercussions.”
“We believe consumers, not bureaucrats, should decide what Canadians watch online. The streaming tax is costly, careless and completely unnecessary. That is why we are calling on the Liberals to reject the CRTC's decision. The government has the authority to act. It should eliminate this streaming tax before Canadians are forced to pay the price. Canadians cannot afford more Liberal taxes. They cannot afford more inflation. They certainly cannot afford another Liberal government cash grab disguised as cultural policy. Conservatives will continue fighting for affordability, for taxpayers and for common sense.”
“The United States has already raised concerns about discriminatory digital taxes and regulatory measures targeting American companies. The Liberals should be working to strengthen North American trade, not weaken it. Our economy depends on stable and predictable trade relationships. The government should not be picking fights with our largest trading partner just to satisfy its ideological obsession with big government. It is not just American organizations that are against this tax hike. It has also faced criticism from Canadian domestic screenwriters and creators, including the Writers Guild of Canada. Conservatives believe in lower taxes. We believe Canadians should keep more of their own money. We believe government should spend within its means, instead of driving up its deficit and constantly reaching deeper into Canadians' pockets.”
“CRTC is targeting and taxing U.S. companies, putting up new, discriminatory trade barriers, and worsening the investment climate for American businesses.” That is exactly what the government is doing: making a bad situation worse. While we are on the topic, how are those trade talks going? I remember that, for the first Canada-U.S. trade deal under Justin Trudeau, there were discussions many months in advance. The true irony of this is that the new Prime Minister sold himself to Canadians as the man who could get a deal with Mr. Trump by July 2025. Obviously, that failed. I am pessimistic about his ability to get a new trade deal anytime soon, especially when his government is increasing tensions between our countries with more needless taxation. That is just irresponsible.”
“This 15% tax hike places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services. Put simply, it discourages business investment in Canada and will further devastate Canadian film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. In the face of declining capital, the Liberals are responding the only way they know how, with another tax hike for already struggling Canadians. That is backward and Conservatives will stand against it. This decision also risks damaging Canada's relationship with the United States ahead of a CUSMA review. At a time when we should be reducing trade tensions, the Liberals are creating new trade irritants. The U.S. ambassador to Canada said, “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse.”
“Canada should be attracting investment, not driving it away. Businesses need certainty. They need competitiveness. They need a government that understands economic growth. Instead, under the Liberal government, all they get is endless regulation, escalating costs and unpredictable markets. Why would companies invest more in Canada when the Liberal government keeps moving the goalposts? Why would innovators choose Canada when they are punished with higher fees and heavier regulation? (1250) Conservatives believe in supporting Canadian culture, but we do not strengthen it by punishing investment, driving up costs and undermining economic growth. This decision creates uncertainty at the worst possible time. Canada's economy is already weak. Productivity is declining. Investment is lagging behind our competitors. Businesses are leaving.”
“This allegedly new and improved leader has a projected deficit of $65 billion. Now the Liberals want to make our entertainment more expensive too. Canadians use streaming services because they want choice, convenience and affordability, and the Liberals are threatening all three. The Liberals have already pushed through the Online Streaming Act. Conservatives warned that bill would open the door to more government control, more CRTC interference and more costs for consumers. We were right. The Liberals claimed ordinary Canadians would not be affected, but now we see the consequences. We see the higher costs. We know there is more red tape. Ultimately, we know it is due to more government meddling. It is the same old Liberal platform: tax, spend, repeat. This decision also sends the wrong message to investors.”
“We have repeatedly called on the government to remove all taxes on gasoline and diesel at the pumps to give some measure of tax relief to beleaguered Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals have only responded with half measures, including taking off a few cents a litre in taxes, but we know more can be done. After 11 years of the Liberal government, life has become more expensive. Mortgage payments have doubled for many families. Food inflation has hammered household budgets. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019 to nearly 2.2 million visits per month. One in four Canadian kids now go to school hungry. Canadians are struggling. At the same time, interest rates have soared. Why? It is because the government fuelled that inflation with its reckless spending. The Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, which was $31 billion.”
“That means higher monthly bills for Canadian families who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis the Liberal government created. The Liberals can try to dress this up in bureaucratic language. They can call it a contribution, and they can call it modernization, but Canadians know better. If it walks like a tax and costs like a tax, it is a tax. Canadians can smell a rat, and they can smell a tax too. This Liberal tax will drive up the cost of living for all Canadians who have to shell out for online streaming services. This is just another example of a government that believes Canadians are somehow undertaxed. Conservatives have always believed in letting Canadians keep more of their own money in their own pockets. By contrast, the Liberals are always the ones with their hands in Canadians' pockets.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are stretched thin. They are paying more for groceries, more for gas, more for rent, more for everything. Now the Liberals want them to pay more to stream their favourite shows and movies online. With this new policy, the CRTC is ordering online streaming services like Netflix and Disney to pay more of their annual Canadian revenues to fund Canadian content. It is not the first time the Liberals have tried to do this. Under the Liberals, the CRTC introduced a 5% tax on revenues. That tax is being challenged and is still before the courts. Now it wants to increase the tax from 5% to 15%, and that is wrong. Let us call it what it is: This is a streaming tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. Canadians know exactly what happens next. Big corporations simply do not absorb new costs. They pass them on to consumers.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned. The Liberals are on track to add $1 trillion to the national debt since taking office just 11 years ago. Just as with our personal credit cards, Canadians know we will have to pay that bill. The Liberal Prime Minister is not a good steward of our tax dollars. It is an illusion. We have more costs, more taxes, more debt. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. When will he get serious? When will he end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?”
“Instead of consumption sites, we need to help those struggling with addictions to get off the streets, get off the drugs and become productive members of society.”
“Mr. Speaker, I chose Edmonton as my home more than 40 years ago. It is a great city. It is friendly and full of honest, hard-working people, but lately, Edmonton is struggling. People are afraid to ride city trains and buses. Many are afraid to go downtown. They read about violent crime and see used needles in the streets. It is all because this great city has been plagued with a drug epidemic. There have been 613 drug poisoning deaths just between January 1 and the end of November 2025. Fentanyl is the killer. Last year, it accounted for 75% of opioid deaths compared to just 15% in 2024. Clearly, the Liberals' supervised drug consumption sites do not work. People do not need a place to do drugs; they need a place to get off of drugs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Liberal MP this: Is it not true that Liberals would be adding two new members to committees so they could have a majority and then the Liberal scandals could no longer be revealed or investigated?”
“Mr. Speaker, we will take the support. It is great. The bill needs a great deal of work yet. Again, we believe in giving police the tools, but we do not want to rob people of their freedoms and rights under the charter.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the devil is in the details. When we start going through Bill C-22 , there are a lot of details we have to look at. We want to give police the tools they need, but we cannot allow the bill to go over and above what Canadians expect. We believe in giving police power but not in giving away charter rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%. The Liberals talk a good game. I had a private member's bill that would have toughened up parole. We had several private members' bills that would have given police more tools. What happened? They got shut down. The Liberals talk a good game, but let us see them deliver. Again, Canadians have a right to be skeptical when poison pills are injected into legislation.”
“Of course, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, we support giving the police tools. However, Canadians have a right to be skeptical of the Liberal government. In previous legislation, we stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals and dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Canadians have a right to be skeptical, and Conservatives are going to fight anything in this bill that looks suspicious.”
“We will not ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In closing, Bill C-22 raises serious and complex questions. It shows some progress, true, but it is clearly not there yet. It requires careful examination, detailed study, and scrutiny at committee and beyond. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedoms, privacy and safety. That work is still ahead of us.”
“On one hand, we must ensure that those who enforce our laws have the tools they need. On the other, we must protect the fundamental rights and freedoms that define our nation. Conservatives will not sacrifice one for the other. If we get this wrong, the consequences will be serious. We have seen what happens when legislation is rushed and when concerns are dismissed. This is why we will not rubber-stamp Bill C-22 . We will do our job. We will study it, question it and propose amendments where needed. We will listen to experts, law enforcement, civil liberties advocates and Canadians, because that is what responsible lawmakers do. We deeply support the objective of keeping Canadians safe. We support giving police effective tools. However, we will not ignore the risks of government overreach or the need for oversight.”
“We must always ask, “How could this power be used, and how could it be misused?” This is our duty as legislators, and it is a duty Conservatives will uphold as we continue to examine this proposed legislation. As legislators, we cannot look at lawful access in isolation. If we are serious about public safety, we need a system that works from start to finish. This includes bail and sentencing. This includes giving police the support they have been asking for over the past number of years. Too often, the government has been selective, listening to law enforcement when it suits it and ignoring it when it does not. Conservatives will always stand with those on the front lines, but we will not accept a trade-off when Canadians' rights are weakened in the process.”
“This is about Canadians' personal information, their data, their communications, their private lives. Metadata alone can reveal a great deal, more than many people realize, yet we are being asked to consider provisions that would involve broad data practices without clear limits or definitions. For example, the bill does not clearly define what constitutes a service provider. That could mean telecom companies. It could mean email providers. It could mean messaging apps or cloud storage. In other words, it could mean access to deeply personal aspects of Canadians' lives. This is not a small matter. We cannot afford vague definitions because once those powers exist, they do not just apply today. They apply tomorrow. They apply to future governments as well. This is not about partisanship but about principle.”
“In some cases, that authority would rest with ministers, not with the courts or with independent bodies. That is a problem. Ministerial authority is not the same as judicial oversight. It is not the same as accountability. It risks becoming arbitrary. Canadians have reason to be skeptical of Bill C-22 . The government has a track record. Time and time again, it has pushed the limits of government power. Time and time again, the Liberals have asked Canadians to simply trust them, but trust must be earned, and right now it is in short supply. (1250) Civil liberties groups from across the spectrum have raised alarms about Bill C-22 . That should tell us something. It tells us we need to slow down and take a closer look. This is not just about technology or policing tools.”
“Of course, we agree with that. We welcome measures that lawfully, and with proper judicial oversight, allow police to access information needed to stop serious crime. Here is the concern. Too often with the Liberal government, the devil is in the details. We have seen it before. We saw it in Bill C-2 . What was packaged as a so-called border bill actually included proposals to inspect Canadians' mail without a warrant. Canadians rejected that. We saw it again in Bill C-8 , a cybersecurity bill that made sense on the surface but also included sweeping ministerial powers with little oversight. Now we have Bill C-22 , and serious concerns remain. One of the biggest concerns I have with this legislation is about oversight. This bill would grant significant authority.”
“We want officers to have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe. That is not in question. It has never been in question. Also, we know these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. At the same time, we stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We stand for privacy and due process. Those two principles must go hand in hand. We will continue working to ensure that privacy and due process are protected, with this legislation and all future legislation. Unlike the Liberal government, we believe in listening before legislating. As a result, Conservatives have spoken with law enforcement about Bill C-22 . What we heard was clear. Officers want tools, and they want clarity. They want to be able to act quickly when it matters most.”
“Thanks to the work of our Conservative team, we forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking their infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash. We stopped them from opening mail without oversight. We stopped them from demanding that any service provider, including even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Now we are presented with Bill C-22 . While this bill excludes some provisions that Conservatives opposed, it also reintroduces parts of the failed Bill C-2. My Conservative colleagues and I continue to carefully review every line of this bill, as lawmakers. This legislation requires the necessary scrutiny and, yes, skepticism. Conservatives take this responsibility seriously. We support law enforcement.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the Edmonton Griesbach riding. I will be using my time to speak to Bill C-22 . Bill C-22 is significant. It touches on public safety, privacy and the fundamental relationship between citizens and the government. That means we absolutely have to get it right. It goes without saying that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control. Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2 , which would have fallen well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask my hon. colleague this: Considering how the Liberals froze bank accounts for people donating to the “freedom convoy”, how confident is he that they would not abuse Bill C-22 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked yesterday what he would do to help Canadians suffering with high gas and diesel prices. He did not have an answer. Even in oil-rich Alberta, folks are paying well over two bucks a litre for diesel. Here is an easy way for the Prime Minister to help. The feds are hauling in record revenues from high oil prices, so they can use $5 billion of that estimated $9 billion to help hard-hit Canadians. Conservatives have a plan: suspend the fuel excise tax, suspend the GST on gas and diesel, and kill the so-called clean fuel standard tax and the hated industrial carbon tax. That would cut 20¢ a litre off the price of gas and 21¢ off the price of diesel. Canadians are suffering. They desperately need some relief from the pain at the pumps. The Liberal government must give them the relief they deserve.”
“I would also like to thank Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu and Senator Denise Batters for their support, as well as my good friend, the MP for St. Albert—Sturgeon River , for his support. I thank again Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne. This bill is not about politics. It is about people. It is about victims. It is about families whose lives have been shattered by senseless, brutal violence. We can build a justice system that treats victims with the respect and compassion they deserve. That is what Bill C-243 seeks to do. This is for Brian Ilesic. This is for every victim of violent crime and for every family left behind.”
“I believe all MPs on both sides of the House will support that, and I am hoping they will vote for this bill to go to committee for further study. To colleagues on both sides of this aisle, I ask them to think about the Canadians in their riding who have signed petitions and written letters asking for this bill. Please represent them, stand up for them and support this common-sense legislation. I am grateful that this bill has received support from the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the president of the Canadian Police Association, the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, the Calgary Police Association, the Toronto Police Association and the Ottawa Police Association. It also has the support of Teamsters Canada and Teamsters Local 362, which represented Brian.”
“Another person watching today is Christina Trang. Her father was murdered in Chinatown, which is part of my riding of Edmonton Griesbach. She supports this bill. Our justice system must protect the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims and their families. Right now, many Canadians believe that balance has tipped too far. They feel that the rights of murderers are placed before the rights of the loved ones left behind. Hundreds of Canadians coast to coast have signed my petition in support of this bill. This bill would not undermine justice. It would strengthen it. It would ensure that victims and their families are treated with the dignity they deserve, while still respecting the integrity of our legal system.”
“I want to dedicate this speech to Brian and to his parents, Mike and Dianne, who are watching what is happening today. This bill is for them, and it is for all the victims left behind. For families, the suffering goes on for decades. In many cases, those left behind must face the person responsible at parole hearings. As it now stands, if a convicted murderer applies for parole and is denied the first time, he or she can apply for another parole hearing just one year later and year after year afterwards. Under Bill C-243 , convicted murderers could only apply for parole every five years instead of each and every year. The trauma endured at these parole hearings is well documented. The families of the victims of Paul Bernardo have spoken about this. They spoke about the pain of being forced back into that nightmare again and again.”
“Mr. Speaker, June 15, 2012, was a dark day in Edmonton. A young man named Brian Ilesic was one of three armoured-car guards who were murdered. The other victims were Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano, and Matthew Schuman. As they serviced ATMs in the Hub Mall on the University of Alberta campus in Edmonton, their co-worker, Travis Baumgartner, shot and killed Brian, Michelle and Eddie. Baumgartner then locked them in a vault behind the ATM and fled like a coward in the armoured truck. Thankfully, Matthew's life was spared, although he was critically injured. Brian was just 35 years old, a devoted father, a loyal friend and a cherished son. In 2012, the savage murderer Baumgartner was found guilty, but Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, are dreading the day when they will have to face him at a parole hearing.”
“Mr. Speaker, my private members' bill, Bill C-243 , is being read for the second time today. It is a common-sense bill that would lessen the anguish of people who have had loved ones stolen from them by murder. This Conservative bill would reduce annual parole hearings for murderers from every year to every five years. Parole hearings are traumatizing. This would be a compassionate law supporting the loved ones of murder victims, and it is endorsed by thousands of Canadians and police nationwide, so will the Liberals stand up for victims—”
“Mr. Speaker, there is reckless government spending, hidden carbon taxes and red tape. After 11 years of the Liberals, there is an affordability crisis. Household debt alone is now a record $2.6 trillion. A recent poll found that 57% of millennials are nearly broke after paying monthly bills. A generation that should be building wealth is draining savings. This week, several university students told me they fear they will never afford a home. It is a Canadian dream to own a home, but under the Liberals, it is now just a pipe dream. Why is that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if it bothers the Liberal members across the aisle that people whose refugee claims have failed get better health benefits than many Canadian senior citizens, including vision care and physiotherapy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wanted to draw to the attention of my colleague that Build Canada Homes is a big bureaucratic program. It has been around for six months and, according to its own website, it has not finished one single home. I am wondering what my colleague would suggest as the Conservative solution to building houses without this huge bureaucracy surrounding it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did a bit of a deep dive on Build Canada Homes. It seems like a noble idea to build homes. The people across the way say they are going to build at a speed that we have never seen before. Build Canada Homes was launched in September of 2025. Six months later, according to Build Canada Homes, not one home has been completed. Why is that?”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and other Liberal MPs have often said that we have a trade war going with the U.S.A., so how is subsidizing the purchase of new U.S.-made vehicles with $5,000 in Canadian tax money helping us win that trade war?”
“Madam Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by my constituents in Edmonton Griesbach. This petition highlights the 26-year persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. My constituents say this persecution has included torture, killings and forced organ harvesting. The petitioners call on the federal government to take urgent action to end these abuses and protect a community targeted by foreign repression. I am pleased to bring this critical matter forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by prices at the grocery store. Well, eight months later, those prices have skyrocketed. I have heard countless horror stories in Edmonton of families struggling to afford food. I have even heard of single moms selling their furniture online to pay for rent and groceries. Just this week, Miranda from North Edmonton told me she honestly does not know how people are getting by; it is heat or eat. When will the Liberals cut their inflationary spending and gas the industrial carbon tax so that Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, I say condolences to the 1,000 workers laid off from Algoma Steel in my hometown of Sault Ste. Marie. My dad, Tony, worked at Algoma for over 30 years. The Prime Minister is squarely to blame for these layoffs. In the election, our elbows-up PM said he was the guy who could get a good trade deal with Donald Trump. Instead of a deal, the PM said, “Who cares?” We then saw higher tariffs on Canadian goods. The results are these layoffs and others. When will the Prime Minister finally get a deal with Trump?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us play “today in history”. It has been 133 days since the Prime Minister said he would have a trade deal with Donald Trump's U.S.A. It was the PM's main campaign promise, but he broke it. It is now December, and there is no deal in sight. Tariffs are higher: Softwood lumber tariffs exceed 45%, tariffs on steel are 25%, and they are 25% on some Canadian autos. It is now almost impossible to sell many crucial products to the U.S., and jobs are being lost. The Prime Minister travels the world to get trade deals with other countries, but he fails there too. Tariffs have now increased on Canadian products shipping to the U.K., India, China and other nations. The PM has racked up the air miles, but that is money for nothing. We do not need a globetrotter; we need a deal maker, but the Prime Minister is not that guy.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, first responders are often victims of crime; because they are first to respond, they are always in danger. I have talked to first responders personally. They feel very strongly that we need tougher laws so that they are not in danger, and that the people who are repeat violent offenders must be kept in jail so that the first responders can do their job of treating people, as they should, and not have to deal with assaults on their person.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hear it all the time in my community. It really is terrifying and so sad that in a country like Canada, people are afraid to be out on the streets in their own neighbourhoods. As a parliamentarian, I truly believe that the first order of business for Canadians, for parliamentarians, is to keep citizens safe. That should be job one. There should be no reason that people could not walk in their own community, day or night, safely. They should not be afraid to be out and about at any time of the day or night.”
“We must keep serious, dangerous offenders off our streets. My colleagues and I are calling on the government to end crime, chaos and disorder in our streets.”