SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 109

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 6, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise to join debate on Bill C-294. I would like to congratulate the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands on bringing forward a bill for debate. We know the lottery system has its winners and losers, and to have a spot to be able to bring forward a piece of legislation for debate is a pretty big honour. Bill C-294 is an enactment that would target the already existing statute of the Copyright Act to essentially allow a person, under certain circumstances, to circumvent what is known as a technological protection measure, also referred to as a TPM, to basically make a computer program interoperable. Let us see how many times I can say that word quickly without stuttering over it, but basically it would be to make it interoperable with any device or component or with a product they manufacture. Just so we can understand the section of the Copyright Act this bill would be amending, the existing text of paragraph 41.1(1)(a) specifies that “no person shall circumvent a technological protection measure”. That is a pretty solid barrier to any kind of progress in this specific area. Before I go much further, I have been pleased to be the agriculture critic for my party now for four and a half years. I recall an important study we did back in the 42nd Parliament on the pace of technology and innovation in agriculture in particular. As a part of that study, our committee travelled right across Canada. We stopped in several different locations and met with some of our leading agricultural producers, manufacturers, researchers and scientists, who are really pushing the envelope in so many different areas and lending themselves to establishing Canada as the agricultural powerhouse it is. We got to see some of the amazing crop breeding technologies going on, but also the equipment. One thing that became abundantly clear is that, with the manufacturing of agricultural equipment, the pace of technological change, particularly in how advanced the computer programs operating this equipment are, is going ahead at a speed that leaves one's head spinning. It is still quite a competitive field, but it is also one dominated by several big players. We heard in other speeches about the fact that because they want their equipment to be used with other pieces of their equipment and are basically trying to corner consumers into sticking with their line of products, they are increasingly resorting to what is known as digital locks. Those locks do not allow for different pieces of equipment to operate with one another. It has long been identified as a frustration among farmers, but this also goes beyond the agricultural sector. This can be applied to many different areas of business, where they are increasingly having to use different computer programs that do not always mesh well with each other, and it can cost a lot of money for a business to have to switch gears and maybe dump one computer program and adopt a whole new system. This is really an important change to basically allow a bit more consumer choice but also to allow some of those small and medium-sized enterprises that are really trying to get their foot in the door to compete on a level playing field, so they can go out into the marketplace with confidence knowing that when they sell their products it is not going to put any pressure on someone to maybe disregard their product because it is not compatible operating with maybe a larger manufacturer. In that sense, this is very noble intention in this bill. When we speak of the word “interoperability”, that basically is what it is. It is going to allow those different systems, devices, applications, products or whatever one may have to be able to essentially connect and communicate with one another in a coordinated way. This is something the user of the product ultimately wants all their stuff to do. I heard one of my colleagues talk about the problem of e-waste. That is a very real problem in this country, and indeed around the world. We are generating so much e-waste and toxic chemicals that can leach into our landfills as a result. If we want to try to stop that from happening, then we have to find ways in our policies and in our laws to encourage people to be able to use a product for as long as they possibly can. Interoperability is going to be a key component of that, so that people can feel confident they do not need to throw something away but can keep on using it with another product. I want to also reference the fact that we in the House have already voted on a bill that was dealing with the concept of the right to repair, and now we are dealing with a bill that would also amend the Copyright Act to allow for interoperability. There is a slight difference between those two concepts, and I know the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has taken some time to really delve into that from a previous question, but I think we can tackle both of them. On the right to repair, I know at committee I have certainly had some manufacturers raise some concerns with it, so I certainly hope that at the committee stage, dealing with the right to repair bill in particular, they address some of those concerns. Manufacturers were concerned that some people might be able to tinker with their equipment to remove safety mechanisms. For example, a lot of forklifts require that an operator be sitting down in the seat, and the seat has to feel a person's weight in order for the machinery to operate. Manufacturers were worried that a person could tinker with that safety system, so that they could operate the forklift while standing beside it and outside the safety box, which, of course, would be incredibly unsafe were the load to tip over or something like that. There have been some concerns raised on it, and I know the committee will do its due diligence in addressing those. Returning to Bill C-294, we also have to set the context. This bill came about after an important report was issued by Western Economic Diversification Canada in February of last year. It essentially set the context of the fact that this is a pretty big issue within the agricultural field. It is a big issue because of new market dynamics that have arisen, created by those digital technologies. Ongoing policy in this area, because of the rapid technological change, has to really address a number of items. The first bullet point here was on copyright policy and whether there are exceptions in the law to permit circumvention of technological protection measures, TPMs, so that we can adapt to this and the reality in the marketplace. I do not want to spend too much more time speaking to the bill. I know my colleague, the member for Windsor West, who sits on the industry committee, may want to say some words on this bill during its second hour of debate, but I know he is looking forward to getting this bill to committee so that it can be studied in further detail. It deserves to continue on its journey to committee. We can let that deliberative body take a closer look at it and really get that airing from witnesses who are directly involved in the field, so they can come and say in their own words why this initiative is so important and give the reasons parliamentarians should ensure that it continues on its journey. I will end by just saying that I look forward to having the opportunity to vote to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and I would like to congratulate the member again on bringing forward this initiative for us to consider.
1349 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-294, and I want to thank my colleague for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for bringing it forward. Interoperability is a lot more fun to say in English than it is in French. However, the bill seeks to amend the Copyright Act, specifically regarding technological protection measures, more commonly known as digital locks, and the interoperability exemption to those locks. New provisions would be in effect such that, and this was brought from the Library of Parliament to be studied in committee, if a person has lawfully acquired an agriculture machine, for instance, and if this machine contains a copy of a computer program and this copy monitors and/or controls the functioning of that machine, then that person will be deemed to have a licence or use of that copy. What does that mean? It means that in the agriculture sector when we have technological advances, such as new software that comes about to make farmers' lives easier or the advancement of AI and a lot of other technological advances that need to use software, when someone buys that equipment, they would be able to use that equipment with other systems that work with it. I can tell members that it is a lot more complicated than a lot of us can understand, but to make a long story short, it would help farmers save money in order to grow more crops, which is really important. Also important, when we talk about industry in Canada, is that it would create competition. When we create competition, we ensure that not only are we looking after farmers and entrepreneurs, but we allow people to have a choice. When people have a choice, they can then make decisions that save them money and that are best for their businesses. Of course, we are talking about farmers in a very rural part of this nation, and we have talked all week about farmers, who are so very important. They are number one in this nation. We plant 89 million acres of crops, but the U.S. is about 10 times that and plants about 890 million acres. However, we have land that can be used for farming and we have technological advances that can make it into a greater reality. Fifty-three per cent of all of our land in Canada is used for farming, and as we have developments in DNA sequencing and genomics, we are able to grow corn farther north almost every year. We are finding advancements in protein clusters. We are finding better ways to grow our food and to be more sustainable, and the world is going to need that. By 2030, the world will need 50% more food, which means we have to produce 1.5 times the amount of food we grow now. Therefore, when we look at farming when it comes to Canada, it is tremendously important, and the bill before us would help out. At the end of the day, the bill would allow farmers to be more competitive, to find more technological advances and to make sure that when we develop the future of farming we have all the tools in place so that farmers can make the best choices and save money. Farmers are so important. They grow the best food in the world here in Canada. We are the breadbasket of the world with a lot of our wheat as well as our protein clusters with our fisheries, farms and animals. At the end of the day, we need farmers to not just survive but to thrive. The bill, of course, would handle only one part of that. However, there will be more advances in the future. I will talk about a few them, and I think it is important to talk about what the advances are right now. When farmers are looking to keep birds and pests away from their crops, they are now using laser scarecrows. We have Bee Vectoring, a new Canadian technology that uses software and bees to help keep pests away from plants. We have Harvest Quality Vision, which uses drones in the air and sensors in the soil to detect nitrogen, so that we can see the best weather and at what point we have to put certain nutrients into the soil. Farmers will also be able to use technology to save on labour, because they cannot find labour anywhere right now. Finding someone to pick crops or work in the field has been increasingly hard. We are going to need technology because of some of our labour shortages. If we do not have labour, we cannot grow crops and we cannot pick our food. We are talking about an industry that is so important that we will need 1.5 times of it in the next eight years. We will need technology to solve some of those problems. On crop and soil monitoring and management, as a colleague mentioned earlier, we have zero tillage happening right now. This means we can plant seeds and harvest crops without touching the soil, which saves the soil. We used to have to do fallowing. This is a new technology that is really amazing for our farmers. There are a lot of other different things being developed. This week, Loblaws, which I know is a dirty word in the House today, launched its first automated vehicles. There is GPS-controlled and automated farm equipment that will be able to manage literally thousands of acres for farmers and do the work that is needed. I do not know if members have seen the movie Interstellar. It had equipment operated by GPS. Let us hope we have a better future than what was in that movie. We need to make sure this is a good bill, and I think it does the bare minimum, which is to ensure that we look at how technology is used on our farms and at how we can support our farmers with control. There is a lot of other help we could give our farmers, and we have talked about it this week. They have a triple threat happening right now. Farmers have increased interest rates, which are really hurting them. There are increased costs when it comes to fertilizer tariffs, which no one else in the world has. Somehow Canada is the only one to have these tariffs on fertilizer, which are going to affect farmers' costs by up to 35%. Third, we have a triple increase to the carbon tax. I will not say it three times, as that has been done enough today, but these are real hardships for farmers. We talk about farmers in Canada, but how many farms do we have? I talked about 89 million acres. There are 189,000 farms in Canada and that is not including hobby farms. I have a lot of hobby farms in my riding. Just a few weeks ago, an ostrich farm opened in my riding. Ostriches look kind of neat and they are delicious. They are also great for the kids. When we were there, they fed them. What is really neat, from an environmental standpoint, is that ostriches use one-fiftieth of the land that cattle do, they let off one one-hundredth of the waste and their tenderloins taste just like beef. It is unbelievable. I am going to bring more people to see them this week. They are trying to scale and grow. They are already using technology as well. They are using technology for feeding and breeding them. It is quite a new industry. Those are the hobby farms outside of the other farms. Another great type of farm in my region is dairy. We have quite a few dairy farms. One of them is Lee Nurse, which is doing robotic milking. All the milking is done by computers. When we talk about interoperability and dairy farms, it is about how they are going to be able to service, upgrade and manage those systems as the technology is advanced, which is really amazing. When it is time to milk, the cows all line up together. I guess they go because there is a cookie with protein that attracts them. With the computer, the robot milks the cows and away they go. It is unbelievable. They have about 180 head of Holstein, and at the end of the day they are doing something really amazing. Of course, this bill would help them, which is really great. It is natural for other companies in the marketplace to try to innovate with new products and develop new marketable items that would make life easier. We want to make sure there is control and that we have given copyright protection to farmers so they can better our lives, grow the food we need and make sure we grow the farming community and economy here in Canada. More competition means more progress. Let us help our farmers, at least in this way.
1516 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, when we have private member's hour and we are debating, we sometimes pay attention and we sometimes do not. This has been a really interesting conversation. I actually want to thank the member for bringing this forward because, while we have had a bill that was very similar with respect to the right to repair, this one seems to narrow in on another aspect of the Copyright Act. There is, sort of, a loophole that is preventing farmers, in this case, from being able to use the equipment they have rightfully purchased and leverage it and adapt it. I want to thank the member for educating us on this issue, and I think that it is definitely an important concept that merits further study to understand it more. As the member knows, often when members bring forward private members' business, they will then reach out to members across the aisle to meet with them, to explain the bill and to solicit support, so I do look forward to meeting with the member to learn more about this bill. The intent of the bill, Bill C-294, is to allow consumers to repair a product on their own without violating the Copyright Act. I think that, with consultations under way right now to inform the modernization of our copyright policy framework, including the facilitation of repair and interoperability, Bill C-294 actually presents a unique opportunity for us to build a strong foundation for the work ahead. When I hear of interoperability, and I can say it quickly, I always think defence, because I worked in the defence field previously. Therefore, when I think of interoperability, I am always thinking of the defence industry. It has actually been quite interesting for me to hear tonight about the application in the farming industry. The member opposite and the previous speakers talked about innovation in terms of farming and doing things quicker, smarter, faster, cheaper. I really am interested to hear more about how the change in this legislation could benefit farmers but also other industries. I actually think it would be quite interesting once this goes through the process, if it does get to committee, to see how this can actually apply to other industries as well and benefit other industries that are looking to innovate. As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in the last Parliament, I learned that industries have many issues with change. A lot of industries do not want to change. A lot of industries are not ready to change. I think that this bill actually brings a unique opportunity for us to do things differently and, as I have said previously, I do look forward to hearing more about this bill. I think it is quite interesting and I think that there is a good complementarity with Bill C-244, the right to repair act, which has been sent to the industry committee. I will conclude by saying that I am quite interested in hearing more. I am not quite sure what my position is in terms of supporting it or not. I would like to meet with the member and get his perspective on a couple of questions.
539 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise today in debate. I wanted to pick up on an important point that the member for Bay of Quinte was talking about. Although he said it had not been said enough times in here today, I did want to emphasize the real burden the government's plan to triple the tax on Canadians is putting on them. We are going to keep listening to Canadians because they are giving us these heartbreaking stories, as we come up on this Thanksgiving weekend, about the rising food prices that they are experiencing, the tax burden and the cost of living crisis. Frankly, it is a made-in-Canada Liberal inflationary crisis that has driven up the cost of everything and has driven Canadians to food banks in record numbers. I want to take a quick opportunity, with my remaining time, to just remind any Canadian who is able to make a donation to their local food bank of goods or cash, which our food banks are able to make go a little further, to make that donation because they are really struggling to help Canadians out as we head into this Thanksgiving weekend. Canada's Conservatives are going to continue fighting for Canadians on the matter of affordability. We know that rising taxes are a concern. That is what we are here to fight.
231 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The hon. member was not quite speaking to the bill, but he will have nine minutes left the next time this bill is before the House. I would just ask him to speak to the bill and not to other issues. It has to be relevant. Therefore, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
77 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:30:02 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about an issue that Canadians have been dealing with for some months now. In the face of restrictions having been lifted all around the world and right across our country, the top doctors in the provinces and territories deemed that the risk to Canadians was such that they did not need to have the restrictions they had had in place early on in 2020 and through 2021, but the government was determined to keep the ArriveCAN app in place. Now, over the course of summer months, throughout the spring and into this fall, we have challenged the government to demonstrate to us what the rationale was. What were the epidemiological facts they were using to continue the use of this app? Every time we had officials at committee, they were unable to give us a scientific rationale. Was it that waste water levels were too high? Was it that community transmission linked to cross-border traffic was too high? Every time we raised it, they were unable to tell us why they were keeping it in place. All the while, family reunification was delayed. People were unable to experience the birth of a family member, or unable to bury a loved one, because of the ArriveCAN app and the unscientific border measures that were in place. We learned today that the government has been lowballing the amount of money this ArriveCAN app cost, this unscientific ArriveCAN app. A lot of questions are being raised in the Globe and Mail today about the ballooning cost of this app, which is shrouded in secrecy by the government. While the government was spending tens of millions of dollars on this app, it was also fining Canadians who were experiencing challenges using it at the border. These were people with the right of entry into Canada, Canadian citizens and permanent residents. The government collected more than a million dollars in fines from Canadians. It seems very clear that the app erroneously put people under house arrest. People who were not COVID positive and had followed all the rules were put under quarantine by a broken app. These people should not be made to pay for the failures of the government. The government should refund the million dollars, and cancel the collections and fines that it levied. The government should make a commitment to Canadians that it is not going to use these types of measures again. They were coercive measures, as he health minister described them, and there was no scientific basis for the government to do that. The government also needs to undertake being honest with Canadians because the price is double what it told Canadians the cost would be. It has refused to be upfront about the details of all of those contracts. Canadians deserve their money back. Canadians deserve an apology, and they deserve a commitment that they are not going to be subjected to this again.
492 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:33:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, for over two and a half years we have been taking action at the border in an effort to protect the health and safety of Canadians. This about saving lives. Our border measures have been effective in monitoring and reducing the risk of importation and transmission of COVID-19 and new variants of concern in Canada. In recent months, the pandemic situation has evolved. We have increased immunity against COVID-19 within the Canadian population, and we are seeing lower hospitalization and death rates. We have high vaccination rates. More than 82% of Canadians have been fully vaccinated. We also have increased the availability of rapid tests, treatments and vaccines, including the new bivalent formulation. That is why, effective October 1, we removed all COVID-19 border measures for all travellers entering Canada. Travellers arriving in Canada no longer have to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter, and in addition, travellers are no longer required to meet COVID-19 testing, quarantine or isolation requirements. Also since October 1, masks are no longer required on planes or trains. However, even though we have ended this requirement, we still strongly recommend that people continue to properly wear a mask that is well constructed and well fitting while travelling. Additionally, travellers no longer have to submit their public health information through the ArriveCAN app. However, if they choose to, travellers can continue to use the optional advance CBSA declaration feature in the app before arriving at the Toronto Pearson, Montréal-Trudeau or Vancouver international airports. Travellers choosing to do this can use either the free ArriveCAN mobile app or the website. The government is maintaining capacity to reinstate some border measures, including testing for monitoring purposes in the event that they are needed to protect Canadians from new significant COVID-19 variants of concern or other emerging public health threats. Travellers are encouraged to review the travel health notices at travel.gc.ca to help them make informed decisions when considering travel outside of Canada. When travelling within Canada, travellers should check with the province or territory of their destination to see what, if any, COVID-19 requirements may apply. The COVID-19 pandemic is not over. There is still the possibility of a resurgence in cases or of a new variant of concern in the future. That is why it is important for individuals to remain up to date with the recommended vaccinations, including booster doses, when eligible. Individuals should not travel if they have symptoms of COVID-19. If travellers become sick while travelling and are still sick when they arrive in Canada, they should inform a flight attendant, crew staff or border services official upon arrival. They may be referred to a quarantine officer, who will decide whether the traveller needs further medical assessment, as COVID-19 remains one of the most communicable of many communicable diseases listed in the Quarantine Act. Travellers are also reminded to make informed decisions when considering travel outside of Canada, to protect their health and safety. They are encouraged to review the Public Health Agency of Canada's online travel health notices for more information on safe travel.
529 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:37:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard the government's rationale for its implementation of the app before, but what we have not heard is an admission that it continued to use the app solely for political considerations. We have even had members of the Liberal caucus say that last year, in the election the Prime Minister called during the pandemic, he used it as an opportunity to stigmatize and divide Canadians. This is not what Canadians need from their government. Now we are in a time when Canadians want to recover from the two years that we have had. They are experiencing very hard times financially because we have this made-in-Canada Liberal inflationary crisis, and they want to hear from the government, frankly, that it is going to atone for what it has done, that it is going to cancel those fines and that it is going to commit to Canadians that it is not going to take these kinds of coercive measures again. It needs to come clean with Canadians about why it has spent twice as much on this ArriveCAN app than it told them it would, and be transparent about all the contracting around it. We are looking for honesty, transparency and integrity.
207 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:38:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, both domestic and international epidemiological situations, as well as long-range modelling, continue to evolve. These, as well as hospital and ICU capacity and the effectiveness of other public health measures to keep Canadians safe, are taken into account when public health experts provide guidance. As I said earlier, the pandemic is not over, and staying up to date with vaccinations, including booster doses, is critical, because immunity wanes over time. Individuals in society are at potential risk of a further resurgence without significant booster uptake. Our government will continue to work with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and stakeholders to examine vaccination strategies for both the short and long term.
112 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:39:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, some months ago, back in the spring, I asked the government about carbon capture, utilization and storage and its position on this. Sixteen months ago I introduced a bill into the House of Commons that was proposing a carbon capture, utilization and storage system for Canada that matched what happened in the U.S. Our trade partner in CUSMA actually has a 45Q regime that incents carbon capture, utilization and storage. Finally, after much consultation, the government decided to move forward on this incentive to decarbonize Canada's economy by including it in its annual federal budget last spring. Here we are, six months later, and where are we on carbon capture, utilization and storage in this country? We are in the same place, really. In July, the government proposed its latest words on moving these measures forward. I say “words” because the proposal includes new, novel and undefined measures such as a knowledge-sharing agreement requirement, which is undefined and yet incurring penalties of up to $2 million per occurrence if not obeyed. It is a document written without seriousness. The government has repeatedly shown its lack of gravitas in its approach to this technology and its development, which the rest of the world has addressed more quickly, recognizing, as the International Energy Agency does, that the world's path to a decarbonized economy and decarbonized future is not possible without carbon capture, utilization and storage. It is a Canadian shame. Canada was, until recently, the country where the technology had advanced most quickly. Industry had spent billions advancing the technology. Governments, provincial and federal, had contributed significant amounts to this advance. What changed? What took away Canadian technology leadership in carbon capture, utilization and storage development? It was tax incentives by our two main environment competitors, which are the United States and Norway, both of which produce a significant amount of hydrocarbon. Since the U.S. instituted its 45Q regime to incent CCUS technology development, our Canadian corporate leaders have moved their developments to opportunities in the United States. Carbon Engineering, the world leader in direct air capture, now works primarily south of our border. The world does not stand still or even stall the way the current government does. The 45Q regime in the U.S. has recently been updated in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act so that tax incentives further encourage technological advances and decarbonization. That is the goal. The current government is still ragging the puck. One key difference in structure between the design in the rest of the world and the approach the government is proposing is the inclusion of enhanced oil recovery. Here is what the government is missing in this ideological, wrong-headed, prejudicial approach to CCUS: Enhanced oil recovery produces hydrocarbons with a full life-cycle carbon footprint lower than newly drilled wells. There is an internal mental block holding the government back from decarbonizing our energy in Canada. It cannot continue to pretend it is even concerned about decarbonization. I call on the government to stop sitting on its hands and to move forward with a revised, effective and accountable CCUS incentive mechanism.
528 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:42:56 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians know that climate change is real. Canadians also know that climate action is hard. In Canada and around the world, climate action is no longer a matter of political debate or personal conviction. It is an existential challenge. That means it is also an economic necessity. Our climate plan is driven by our national price on pollution, the smartest and most effective incentive for climate action, and by a new Canada growth fund, which will help attract the billions of dollars in private capital that we need to transform our economy at speed and scale. Smart climate investments today are good for Canadian workers, good for the Canadian economy and good for the planet. With the largest mobilization of global capital since the industrial revolution already under way, Canada has a chance to become a leader in the clean energy of the future. Climate change is the greatest long-term threat of our time. Taking action on climate change is the greatest opportunity for our economy, and we can create well-paying sustainable jobs across our country. Carbon capture, utilization and storage is about reducing emissions. CCUS also plays a critical role in Canada's economic and environmental future as we strive to meet our objective of net zero by 2050. However, I want to be clear that it is not the only tool to be used; it is one of the tools in our tool box. In budget 2021, our government proposed an investment tax credit for CCUS projects with the goal of reducing emissions by at least 15 megatonnes of CO2 annually. Then, after consulting with the public, stakeholders and the provinces on the design of the investment tax credit for CCUS, budget 2022 proposed a refundable investment tax credit for businesses that incur eligible CCUS expenses, starting in 2022 to contribute to our goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. The new investment tax credit is intended to be available for a broad range of CCUS applications across different industrial subsectors, such as concrete, plastics and fuels. They include blue hydrogen projects and direct air capture projects. It is not intended that the tax credit be available for enhanced oil recovery projects. A CCUS strategy for Canada will ensure Canada is well positioned to enable meaningful climate action, to ensure we create well-paying sustainable jobs for communities and people and to support a more circular economy.
411 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:45:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure that addressed anything I talked about in my points here today. We are talking about moving forward with a regime that matters to the world and that actually matters to our economy and environment more than anything else, yet the government stalled on it. It has been stalled, for as long as I have been in Parliament, on moving forward with decarbonization mechanisms. The government has all kinds of programs, none of which are effective at decarbonizing our economy, but this is a pretense, and a pretense it continues to hold. I will note another pretense, from a document the Minister of Environment and Climate Change put out this summer: “Options to cap and cut oil and gas sector greenhouse gas emissions to achieve 2030 goals and net-zero by 2050”. It is a discussion document. That discussion document is effectively premised on the government saying that it had guiding principles that were brought forward by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, of which I am a member. I assure the House that it is a pretense. Our committee never brought that forward. This document is premised on a lie, and the government has to address that.
205 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:46:35 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to making smart climate investments to reach net zero by 2050 and build a stronger, more vibrant economy for all. Canadians understand quite well that without a serious climate plan, Canada has no economic future. Our government will help Canada continue to lead in global efforts to fight climate change, to protect our nature and to build a clean economy that will create the well-playing and sustainable middle-class jobs of today and tomorrow.
81 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:47:07 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the government if it would commit to cancelling its planned payroll tax increases, which will shrink paycheques starting on January 1. In response, the government admitted that some Canadians may be struggling with the high cost of housing, but it went on to do what it always does. When asked about the affordability crisis in housing, it patted itself on the back for its half-baked plans for the one-time payment it is proposing, which will be equal to about one week's rent in major Canadian cities. We are in the throes of the worst inflation in 40 years, while an entire generation of Canadians gives up on the dream of owning their own home. My specific question arose from a conversation I had with a former business colleague in Calgary who told me about the price jump in a particular condo development. It occurred to me that when we consider the price increase and also factor in the recent and predictable spike in interest rates resulting from the government's deficits and facilitated by printed money, as well as its increase on property taxes, condominium fees and heating costs, which are also rising, the income necessary to qualify for this basic, bare, entry-level condominium had nearly doubled in one year according to the formula used for mortgage qualification by lending institutions. This is heartbreaking for young people. Too many young people think they will never be able to move out of their parents' homes. Too many people wonder if they will ever afford anything beyond a tiny apartment. Too many young people despair over whether they will be able to start their own families, and the government offers no solutions. It offers only a commitment to shrink Canadian paycheques by increasing payroll taxes, shrink the purchasing power of the money Canadians have left after tax by tripling the carbon tax, and shrink the value of any savings they might have by continuing to fuel inflation. The current cost of living crisis was a long time in the making. The government added $100 billion to the national debt before COVID, squandered the balanced budget it inherited from the previous government and broke all of the 2015 election promises upon which it was elected during a time of a booming world economy. It allowed structural deficits to creep back into Canadian public finances, undoing 20 years of fiscal prudence instilled by both the previous Conservative government and the Chrétien-Martin government before it. Then COVID hit. It added hundreds of billions of dollars more in further debt for $200 billion in new non-COVID spending, funded with printed money, triggering a spiral of rising costs, rising interest rates and a rising level of debt servicing costs. If the government wants to give young Canadians hope for a future with a home they can afford, it will have to stop making things worse. It has to get serious about dealing with the barriers that prevent housing construction from meeting housing demand. It has to get serious about economic growth resulting from real people building real things that supply real services to real consumers, not the crony capitalism that has crept into the government in everything from its infrastructure bank to its supercluster system and corporate giveaways. It can stop the planned payroll tax increase. It can stop the planned tripling of the carbon tax, which increases the price of food, transportation and home heating. Canadians cannot afford higher prices and higher taxes with smaller paycheques.
597 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:51:11 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, we are seeing higher inflation rates and higher costs of living in Canada and, frankly, right around the world as a large result of many factors, which include the war in Ukraine; global supply chain bottlenecks, in large part due to the pandemic; and global energy market uncertainty. This is something our government is concerned with, and I can reassure my colleagues that we are working on solutions to support Canadians day in and day out. Canadians are facing the pressure when they reach for items at the grocery store and when they pull into a gas station. However, inflation is actually less severe here than it is among many of our peers. It was 7% here in August, while it was 8.3% in the United States, 9.9% in the United Kingdom, and 7.9%. in Germany. We recognize the challenges. The opposition would like us to drop the GST on gasoline and get rid of our pollution pricing system. Quite frankly, this would be a terrible idea. It makes much more sense to support Canadians who need it the most with targeted measures, such as those included in our $12.1-billion affordability plan. Gas taxes represent only a small portion of the total price that Canadians pay at the pump, so cutting them would be ineffective in protecting consumers from powerful global market forces. It is important to understand that these market forces are driving daily changes in gas prices that are often substantially greater than the proposed 5% tax cut. This means that any positive impact on the price of gas would be wiped out in a day. The government would also be in the uneasy, unfortunate position of having spent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars trying unsuccessfully to fight market forces over which it has little control. Putting a price on pollution is the most effective and least costly means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note that Canada's approach is flexible. Any province or territory could design a pricing system that meets its needs, as long as it meets the federal benchmark. The federal backstop only applies in jurisdictions that do not have a pricing mechanism that meets the federal benchmark. The federal fuel charge is part of this, and one thing is clear, it does not make life less affordable for the large majority of people. In provinces that do not meet the federal benchmark and where the federal fuel charge has been implemented, approximately 90% of direct proceeds are being directly returned back to households. In 2022-23, these climate action incentive payments mean that a family of four would receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, families in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10%. The reality is that, as part of the climate action incentive payments, most households are getting back more in payments than they pay in increased costs from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. Also, dropping the federal fuel charge in these provinces would mean smaller climate action incentive payments going back to the individuals in those backstop provinces. It would mean less money in the pockets of many people, including those living in the member opposite's own riding.
557 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:54:39 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, tonight we see a continued doubling down on the same points we have heard from the government. I did not hear much about housing in that response, even though that is really what the question we are debating tonight was centred on. We see the same old splitting of hairs over whether or not Canada's inflation crisis is really the worst among peer countries. Other countries that engaged in destructive financial practices, which ran enormous deficits on printed money, are also suffering the same effects that we are having here in Canada. Tonight, yet again, we have a defence of the carbon tax and the claim debunked by the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the majority of people are somehow better off with this tax.
127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:55:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, our government understands quite well that Canadians are feeling the effects of elevated inflation, particularly at the gas pump and when they reach for items at the grocery store. However, dropping taxes on gasoline is simply not the right solution. We have developed an affordability plan that provides more money to Canadians who need it the most when they need it the most. Our plan is a suite of targeted measures in new support in 2022. In fact, some of our measures are already putting money back in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join it this year. Canadians can count on us to continue to support them through this inflation crisis while remaining prudent fiscal managers.
124 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/6/22 6:56:27 p.m.
  • Watch
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.)
42 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border