MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Chak Au

Follow by RSS

Chak Au works to defend private property rights and support Bill C-289 to stiffen fentanyl penalties. He frames policy debates as stark choices, arguing that “there are only two possible outcomes.” Au also raises local concerns in Richmond, including seniors’ housing shortages and the rise of shoplifting.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A
92 / 100 over 29 statements
Signal 84 / 100
Relevance 86 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 98 / 100
Loses points more than most for Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 29 of 34 statements graded so far.

Statements 34

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The Liberals are hurting Canada's arts and film industry with new fees and taxes. We should stop blaming Donald Trump for our problems. Instead of government control, we should bring in private investment and competition to help Canadian culture grow.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that my Bloc colleague made earlier that the Liberals are a major threat to the cultural sector in Canada. Imposing that kind of levy with an increase is not going to make the cultural sector stronger. Also, I believe we are focusing too much on Trump. We are talking about our own production and our own film industry in our country. Very often, Trump is being used as an excuse or as a defence, which again sidesteps the issue. We have to encourage investments coming into our country for the cultural sector, so that those investments and their efficiency through competition will make Canada’s culture be more widely broadcast, not by government intervention, but by the market economy.

In response to a question from Jim Bélanger

“Our film industry brings jobs and money to our communities. We should not put extra costs or taxes on these businesses, because that will hurt people and the economy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think my city and his riding are in a similar situation. We have a growing film industry, and we are creating jobs and economic activities in our community, which is very beneficial to people. I think we have to keep this economic growth going. If this kind of levy is imposed on companies creating jobs for our communities, I think it will hurt people. We have to safeguard and encourage the film industry, and not have it destroyed by this kind of additional cost for businesses.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government has changed CRTC decisions before, so it can do it again now. This new fee will make life more expensive. Does the government support adding this extra cost on people?”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us see who is sidestepping here. From 2021 up to now, we have seen numerous occasions where the government intervened with decisions made by the CRTC. Now the Liberals are trying to hide behind the argument that the CRTC is an arm’s-length organization. Let us be clear. We are not talking about the CRTC’s mandate here today. We are talking about affordability and the burden on the people with this increase in levy. Let me ask a simple question: Does the government agree that this increase would impose an additional burden on the people? Also, will the government support this additional burden on the people?

In response to a question from Kelly DeRidder

“The government must reject the new fee on streaming services like Netflix. This fee will make subscriptions more expensive for families. It will also push movie and television jobs out of Canada.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government must reject the CRTC’s massive increase imposed on our online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV, an increase sometimes referred to as the “Netflix tax.” The government may try to frame this as a technical broadcasting adjustment, but Canadians know what it really means. It means higher costs and another blow to affordability at a time when families are already struggling. The government could not even contain itself from taxing at-home leisure. The CRTC has now increased the required contribution from major streaming services from 5% to 15% of Canadian revenues, tripling the burden imposed on these companies. The 15% levy now places Canada among the most expensive countries in the world for streaming services to operate in. Let us be honest, business and Canadians do not operate alone or in a vacuum. When the Liberal government increases costs, those costs do not simply disappear. They erode the quality of leisure for hard-working Canadians. The Liberal government will, of course, avoid answering a very simple economic question: Who ultimately pays for this massive increase in costs? There are only two possible outcomes. Either streaming platforms decide Canada is becoming too expensive and not worth investing in, or they pass the high costs directly on to Canadian consumers. In both cases, Canadians lose. If productions move elsewhere, Canada loses jobs, investment and economic activity. This industry is highly mobile. Streaming companies can produce content almost anywhere in the world. Governments everywhere are competing aggressively to attract these productions, because they generate high-quality jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Why is the government increasing costs at a time when Canada is already struggling to attract investment? Canada already has a growing reputation internationally for being expensive, over-regulated and increasingly difficult to do business in. We have already seen capital leaving sectors such as energy, manufacturing and resource development. This policy discourages investment in Canada and is particularly damaging for major film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. If the government believes companies will simply pass the costs on to consumers, then let us call the policy what it really is, which is an indirect tax on Canadians. The Liberals may insist this is not technically a tax because the money does not flow directly into government revenue, but if government policy deliberately increases costs for companies and companies then raise prices for consumers, the effect on Canadians is exactly the same: Families pay more. Whether it appears on a tax form or on a monthly streaming bill, it is still more money coming out of the pockets of Canadians during a cost of living crisis. The Liberals may argue that the increase per household is small, but Canadians are tired of being told every increase is small. A few dollars more for streaming, a few dollars more for groceries, a few dollars more for fuel and a few dollars more for utilities, and eventually, those small increases become a major burden for families already living paycheque to paycheque. The total amount involved is not small. Reports indicate the new framework could extract hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually from the Canadian market, potentially approaching $600 million overall in contribution obligations. That is money Canadians could otherwise spend in the broader economy. That money could go toward groceries, restaurants, children’s clothing, mortgage payments or supporting small businesses. Instead, the Liberals are squeezing more money out of consumers during a cost of living crisis. While the government talks about supporting industry, these platforms are already major contributors to the Canadian economy. Netflix alone has stated that, between 2021 and 2024, its activities generated approximately $6.5 billion in economic impact in Canada. These productions support thousands of jobs: camera operators, editors, visual effects artists, drivers, construction workers, caterers and countless small businesses connected to film production. This is especially important for major urban centres, such as Vancouver and Toronto, where the screen production industry has become a major economic engine. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver, creating more than 450 jobs in the city and bringing significant investment into British Columbia. This issue matters deeply to my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond and the broader Metro Vancouver region are directly connected to British Columbia’s growing film and streaming industry. Many residents in my community work directly or indirectly in these sectors. In Richmond alone, filming activities take place almost every day of the year. When productions expand, jobs are created. When investments slow, local workers and businesses feel the consequences. Conservatives believe Canada should be a country that attracts investment, rewards innovation and creates jobs. However, once again, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction. Every time a sector becomes successful, this government seeks another opportunity to impose higher costs and heavier regulations. At a time when Canada desperately needs economic growth, productivity and investor confidence, this government is making Canada less competitive. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price, through fewer jobs, less investment or higher monthly bills. This increase is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Canadians deserve affordability. Canadians deserve economic opportunity. Canadians deserve a government that understands growth cannot come from squeezing more money out of consumers and businesses. Conservatives will continue standing up for affordability, investment, jobs and common sense.

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“A recent court ruling could cause Richmond property values to drop by 40 percent. The government created this uncertainty, and it worries families and businesses. I want the government to fix this problem and protect homeowners.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal housing minister accused Conservatives of fearmongering over the Cowichan ruling, but the impact is already real and immediate. According to expert reports in March, Richmond property value could fall by 40% because of uncertainty created by the government. Families, homeowners and businesses are worried, yet the Liberals remain in denial, denying the impact and denying that their litigation directive was a mistake. When will the government wake up and restore certainty for homeowners?

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“A recent court decision leaves landowners with too many questions about their property. I want the government to vote for our motion to protect private land rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are in denial. Canadians are demanding certainty, yet the Liberal government continues to leave homeowners, businesses, farmers and municipalities in limbo after the Cowichan decision. Conservatives have put forth a motion that would compel the government to replace litigation guideline 14, put private property first in the Cowichan case, secure fee simple property protection in future agreements and publish a plan to protect Canadians’ land titles. Will the Liberal government finally stand with homeowners and vote for our Conservative motion to protect private property rights in Canada?

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The government says it disagrees with a court ruling about Indigenous land claims, but it has not explained why. Homeowners and businesses need certainty. I want the government to explain what part of the ruling it is challenging and how private property will be protected.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it disagrees with the Cowichan ruling, but Canadians still do not know what exactly the Liberals disagree with. Which part of the ruling are they appealing? On what legal basis does the government believe that private property ownership can coexist with aboriginal title? Homeowners, municipalities and business owners deserve clarity. Why are the Liberals refusing to give Canadians certainty?

Statements by Members ·

Public Safety

“Shoplifting is a growing crisis across Canada. Repeat offenders are quickly released back into stores, which hurts businesses, workers, and shoppers. I want the Liberal government to take action to stop this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, shoplifting is no longer a petty crime. It is becoming a growing crisis, affecting public safety, affordability and confidence in our justice system. Across Canada, police have reported that shoplifting has increased by 66% over the past decade, with annual losses at nearly $10 billion. In Richmond, police recorded more than 1,700 shoplifting cases last year. In the first two months of this year, reports surged another 70%. Businesses are spending more on insurance and security instead of spending on growth. Retail workers face intimidation and unsafe conditions. Consumers are paying the price through higher costs. Canadians feel abandoned by a system where repeat offenders are arrested, released and soon back in the very same stores again. People are left asking how much worse this crisis must become before meaningful action is finally taken by the Liberal government.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Jamie Schmale

“The government needs to admit its order was a mistake or say it still stands by it. Either way, Canadians lose. I thank the City of Richmond for pushing the argument that lets us appeal this.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 34 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is the question the Liberal government has to answer. The Liberals either have to admit they made a mistake in giving the directive, or they have to stand up and say they are still honouring that directive. Either way, Canadians are the losers. With respect to the appeal, it is because the City of Richmond insisted right from the beginning on the fee simple argument that we are able to proceed in the appeal for that argument. I thank the City of Richmond for insisting on that argument. Shame on the government.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“This is an urgent problem that is already hurting people in British Columbia and my riding. We cannot wait any longer, and the government needs to work with us to fix it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first, this is an urgent matter in the sense that we have already felt the consequences on the ground. People in my riding and in the province of British Columbia are worried, and they are already being impacted by the consequences and uncertainty. In addition, we have asked for an emergency debate before, which was not granted. This is not a matter on which we can keep waiting, and we have been asking the government to work with us on a solution.

In response to a question from Jaime Battiste

“The Liberal government waited until the last minute to appeal the court ruling, well after Richmond and British Columbia did. They limited what their own lawyers could say in court. They have stayed silent for eight months and still will not give clear answers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, would my colleague on the other side not admit that the Liberal government did not appeal the ruling until the very last moment, long after the City of Richmond and the Province of British Columbia had done so? Would he not admit that the Liberals gave their lawyers the restrictive directive to tie their hands in court? Does he not admit that they have been silent for eight months and that, still, to this day, they have not given us any clarity?

“A recent court ruling has created huge uncertainty about private property rights in British Columbia. Homeowners cannot renew mortgages, deals are falling through, and businesses are hurting. The Liberal government waited months to appeal and ordered its lawyers not to fully defend private land ownership. I want the government to change these legal rules and clearly protect private property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for eight months, British Columbians have been left with silence: silence after a court ruling that raised serious questions about the certainty of private property rights in Canada; silence after repeated concerns from homeowners, businesses, municipalities and investors; silence after Richmond city council sent letters asking the government for clarity; and silence after Canadians asked the very simple question of whether the Liberal government still believes in defending the legal foundations of private property rights in Canada. After all that silence, when the Prime Minister finally addressed the issue in the House, Canadians did not get answers. They got talking points, attacks and accusations of fearmongering, but they still did not get clarity, so let us put some facts on the record. First, despite what the Prime Minister claimed in the House, the Liberal government did not immediately appeal the Cowichan ruling. It waited until the very last possible moment before filing its appeal, long after the Province of British Columbia and the City of Richmond did, which is a clear distinction in willingness to stand up for Canadians. If the Liberals truly believed the ruling created no uncertainty, why did it wait until the deadline had nearly expired? Second, throughout this entire controversy, the government has offered no meaningful public explanation of the ruling and no substantive public statement on the implications for homeowners, businesses, municipalities, lenders or investors. Eight months passed before Canadians even heard a serious acknowledgement from the Prime Minister. Third, Richmond city council repeatedly attempted to engage with the Liberal government. It wrote letters seeking clarity on the implications of the Cowichan and Musqueam agreements and the border concerns surrounding land title certainty and federal litigation policy. These are not just fringe concerns. Homeowners cannot renew their mortgage. The concerns came from elected municipal leaders representing one of the most economically significant communities in British Columbia. What did they receive? It was silence. There was no meaningful engagement, no public reassurance and no detailed explanation. Fourth, when Conservatives ask questions in committees and in the House, the government consistently provides vague and ambiguous answers. They hide behind legal technicalities. They avoid direct responses. They narrow every answer to procedural language instead of addressing the border issues Canadians were actually worried about: whether the government was weakening the legal foundations that underpin private ownership in Canada. That is not the level of clarity that business owners and investors must depend on. Finally, when the Prime Minister did speak, after months of pressure, he still refused to provide the one assurance Canadians were looking for. He would not clearly commit to withdrawing the 2019 directive’s litigation guideline 14, which effectively sent its own lawyers into court with one hand tied behind their back. Let us be absolutely clear: The central issue in this litigation is that the federal government, through litigation guideline 14, instructed its lawyers to restrict their arguments regarding the supremacy and extinguishment effect of fee simple rights. This directive was issued in the middle of ongoing litigation and represented a clear change of course in the government’s line of argument. Rather than fully defending the certainty and finality of private property rights, the government deliberately narrowed the arguments available to its own counsel, creating uncertainty with potentially far-reaching consequences for property owners across Canada. That directive remains publicly available on the Liberal government’s own website today, so Canadians are still left asking what exactly the government’s position is. Conservatives have been accused of fearmongering for raising these concerns, but let us look at the real-world consequences of uncertainty. Markets react immediately. Investors react immediately. Lenders react immediately. Businesses react immediately. The consequences are already being felt on the ground in British Columbia. Montrose Properties has publicly raised concerns about the uncertainty surrounding land title and investment confidence. The local golf course now sits in limbo, uncertain if it should continue to invest in growth or prepare to sell. Farmers who have worked their land for decades are now questioning how to manage long-term operations while watching property values decline and financing uncertainty increase. A local senior couple has reportedly been unable to sell their property in order to pursue a more secure retirement. Even a deal involving the sale of a local hotel that is not even located within the distributed area has collapsed because of the growing uncertainty surrounding land title and future risk. These are not theoretical consequences. There are real people, real businesses and real livelihoods being impacted right now. Canadians are not asking for abstract legal debates. These are foundational questions about confidence in Canada’s economy and its legal systems. These issues matter deeply in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond is not just another municipality. It is one of Canada’s economic gateways to the Indo-Pacific. It is home to major transportation, infrastructure and international trade networks; logistics hubs; exporters; and entrepreneurs and families that have invested their life savings into homes and businesses. It is a place where immigrants have chosen to build a livelihood. That is why Richmond’s city council raised concerns. That is why residents are paying attention. That is why businesses are watching carefully. The Cowichan ruling has far-reaching consequences, yet the Liberal government is trying to water down its significance and mislead Canadians about its impact. The Liberals know they made a grave mistake when they gave their lawyers the restrictive instructions, and now they are trying to distance themselves from the consequences. They know that the impact of this ruling is real, yet instead of taking responsibility, they are attempting to whitewash the issue and accuse others of fearmongering. This decision will have profound and lasting consequences not only for Richmond, not only for the Lower Mainland and not only for British Columbia but for all of Canada. The government’s actions will be remembered as a shameful chapter in our country’s history. Canadians deserve transparency. We deserve confidence. We deserve real answers.

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The government told its lawyers not to defend private property rights in court. Is this still the government's policy, and will the Prime Minister cancel it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watched a poorly staged performance last week when the Prime Minister responded to a simple question on private property rights from another Liberal MP. They could not even pretend to care. The fact remains that the Liberal government issued a litigation directive instructing federal lawyers to avoid protecting arguments for private property rights. That directive remains posted on the Liberal government’s website today. Is this directive still government policy and if so, will the Prime Minister withdraw it, yes or no?

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The Liberals say they protect private property, but they failed to defend private land ownership in court. I want them to change their orders and tell their lawyers to protect Canadians' property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they defend private property rights, yet in the Cowichan case they chose not to argue extinguishment, which is how fee simple ownership has been historically defended. They weaken protections and then claim to defend them. Will the Liberals withdraw their directive and instruct their lawyers to defend private property rights to protect Canadians, yes or no?