44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the manner in which the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands made his presentation on the bill. I also had the opportunity to speak to it previously.
I believe that as a government, and as members on all sides of the House, we have an appreciation for consumers, and it is important that we take legislative and budgetary actions where we can in order to support consumers. That is the way I look at this piece of legislation.
Although the emphasis is in one area, the example I was going to use is the one the member made reference to, which is that of Apple. I recently purchased an Apple iPad. When I say “recently”, it was a number of months ago. The Apple iPad now has a different end on it, so if I have other Apple products I cannot use the same charger, nor plug in a headset to listen. If I want to listen to a video, I have to buy a special attachment, which Apple of course is the first to produce, at a prime price. This is something very serious, and it gives the bill a great deal of merit.
A number of years ago, when I was much younger than today, I can recall being out in the area of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. They were stowing a farm, and they had the big John Deere tractors back then. What was really impressive was how this individual, and the family, understood every aspect of the machinery. It is truly amazing how our farmers in the Prairies understand farm machinery. It very much matters should something go wrong on the farm, if they are cultivating their field and they have a computer issue or a part issue, or if they want an add-on. If we want to talk about innovators, we can look to our farmers and we will see innovation in many different ways, in how they can modify equipment to enable the operation of that piece of machinery to ultimately do a far better job because they are using it first-hand.
Therefore, when we talk about interoperability and how technology has changed over the last number of years, we find that the initial thinking behind it, in dealing with issues like the Copyright Act, made a whole lot of sense because as a government we want to encourage and promote creativity and innovation. That is one of the reasons why it is important that we have the Copyright Act, whether it is with respect to our cultural industry or our economic industry, which is specific to things such as manufacturing.
That is why we have the legislation. That is why we have governments around the world, in particular western governments, that have recognized that if they want to support state-of-the-art technological advancements or creativity, they need to have copyright legislation. Generally speaking, it has been very effective. However, when we look at the TPMs and the advancements in technology, in particular in the whole area of computers, we can very quickly understand why in recent years we have seen issues come to the table that I do not think people had really anticipated. I can try to relate to it from a personal perspective.
At one time, I had a car where I could take the motor apart and put it back together and it would actually run. Today, if a person pops the hood of a vehicle, it is truly amazing how the computer is intertwined with the running of the vehicle itself. In the past, one could go to third party manufacturers to pick up the necessary parts and make some modifications so that the vehicle or the tractor would be able to do the things that it was meant to do.
Those are the types of concerns I think that most of us have. This inability was put in place by things like TPM, or better known as digital locks, and particularly through the advancement of computers. The days when someone would look at a motor and attach some wires to it to try to find out what the issues were are long gone. Now we can plug in one thing and it will do a complete diagnostic. Nowadays, through the Internet, we can get notifications telling us when it is time to have an oil change done on a vehicle. Those are the types of advancements that we see in technology. It has actually gone to a degree in which TPMs are now being utilized in such a fashion that it is not friendly to the consumer. That is why there is a need for us to take a look at the act to ensure that there is a heightened sense of fairness to the individual who owns the product or to the third party manufacturers. That is a very important industry to be taken into consideration.
Talking about the Copyright Act, we need to balance consumer rights and competition. I appreciate the member made reference to the bill, Bill C-294, being at committee with presentations being made. Some suggestions from the government were actually incorporated, I suggest, for good reason.
In the chamber I have talked about the importance of international trade for Canada. That is of the greatest importance. International trade and the trade agreements that Canada has entered into need to be respected. Having these agreements in place, we cannot just pass anything that we feel ultimately makes a whole lot of sense too quickly; due diligence must be done. If we were to unknowingly pass something that has an impact, we could potentially be in violation of a trade agreement that could cause other repercussions. I know this should concern all members of the House as we do not want to be in violation of agreements or areas of the legislation meant to promote and protect innovation and creativity.
I think, in listening to the member and having somewhat of an understanding of the legislation, that the legislation will in fact improve upon the system. That is why, I suspect, the member is getting the support because it is indeed a step forward. This government has been a champion of consumer rights and competition. Therefore, I suspect that it will be getting the support of the government.
1064 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on the importance of this interoperability bill, a key initiative in protecting consumer rights and encouraging innovation.
However, it is equally important to prevent this legislation from being used to restrict competition or limit the consumer's ability to use products and services they lawfully purchased themselves.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. He answered questions from us and showed a strong command of the topic. I think that all members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology would agree that many companies will use this new provision of the Copyright Act as intended. I would also like to underscore the work of the member for Halifax and parliamentary secretary, who managed to get us all on board despite our conflicting positions during the negotiation phase.
Like the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, I also come from a rural area, and all too often our farmers, miners and others find themselves stuck in closed ecosystems. In other words, if a farmer purchases a John Deere tractor, and a company has developed a piece of machinery with the features he needs and that suit him, as it stands, it is quite possible that the elements are not interoperable, that they cannot connect to one another. Bill C‑294 will allow the company in question to develop a connector so that the machine can be used properly with a John Deere tractor.
The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C‑294 at third reading.
Interoperability is an important concept in the digital world, too. This is about IT products and services being able to work together, regardless of their origin.
In the copyright context, interoperability means that consumers can legally use the products and services they have purchased with other products and services, even if they are produced by other companies. This might seem obvious, but in practice, companies can use the Copyright Act to limit the interoperability of their products and services with those of other companies.
For example, a company can use technological copyright protection measures to keep consumers from using a product or service with another product or service that has not been approved by that company. That can have major negative consequences for consumers and innovation. Consumers can find themselves stuck in a closed environment where they are forced to use the products and services of a particular company. That can make it difficult for competitors to compete with these companies, which can stifle innovation and lead to inferior products and services. I could cite the example of Apple products, which can only connect with other Apple products.
The interoperability bill seeks to address this problem and allow consumers to circumvent technological copyright protection measures used by companies to limit the interoperability of their products and services. It amends the Copyright Act to allow interoperability in certain circumstances. Specifically, Bill C‑294 proposes to introduce a copyright exception to permit the creation of products and services that are compatible with other copyrighted products, provided that it is done in a fair and equitable manner. This exception to copyright would allow developers to create compatible products and services without infringing on other companies' copyrights. This could pave the way for greater competition and innovation in the technology industries.
In addition, the interoperability bill would help strengthen consumer rights. Consumers would be able to freely choose the products and services they prefer without being limited by digital locks. It may also encourage companies to offer higher quality products and services, as they would be forced to compete on the basis of quality and innovation, rather than on the basis of digital locks.
It should also be noted that the interoperability bill would not affect companies' legitimate copyrights. They would still be able to protect their products and services with copyrights and prevent their illegal use. However, they would not be able to use copyrights to block interoperability and prevent competition. In committee, I wondered in particular about the video game industry, for example, and the possibility of copying games and putting them on other platforms such as online streaming platforms.
The interoperability bill is also important for researchers and universities. They often need to access data and proprietary software to conduct research, which can be easier with interoperability. This could encourage research and innovation in a wide range of areas, from medicine to technology.
Finally this bill could help boost Quebec's economy by encouraging competition and innovation, especially in the regions. Interoperability could stimulate the creation of new companies by making it possible for emerging companies to create products that are compatible with existing products without having to develop a new ecosystem from scratch.
This could also help more established companies to innovate and remain competitive by offering goods and services that are more user-friendly and adaptable. This is an important initiative for the future of innovation and competition in Canada. It will allow consumers to freely choose the goods and services they prefer, help stimulate research and innovation and encourage the creation of new and innovative companies.
This bill brings something positive for consumers, since it frees us from the limitations that many companies tend to impose on their clients, preventing us essentially from becoming prisoners of the original software owner. I commend the companies that do not resort to the act, that allow interoperability and do not obstruct it. If this bill gets through every stage, which has become highly likely on this side of the House, it will be the standard for all. There are many companies that come to mind that illustrate good practices and the benefits for consumers. If there is one thing to remember, it is that interoperability opens infinite possibilities to use the technological tools we have in better ways.
We need to think about the enjoyable and user-friendly tools people want to work with. That is what the bill addresses. Take a cellphone, for example. It is much more than a telephone; it is a pocket computer that can be used for all kinds of activities. To make it even more versatile, we can download many different apps that get added to the operating system and add new functions to it. Without interoperability, would the use of this device be so widespread? I doubt it. The answer is obvious.
I invite all my colleagues to support this bill and to work to promote it. By working together, we can create a more equitable, innovative and prosperous future for everyone. The idea is to dissuade businesses from developing products in a vacuum. I will repeat the same message this evening: We need to shift to a new paradigm and stop throwing money away. Repairability and interoperability are principles that need to be enshrined in the Copyright Act. We have to do much more with fewer resources. This realization is already reflected in Quebec's new laws and policies. It also helps to prevent waste and planned obsolescence.
I want to thank the many witnesses and all the companies that made submissions. They have contributed to an initiative that originated in the work of an MP who was able to reflect the needs his constituents, as well as those in many other ridings.
In closing, I would like to point out that the Copyright Act can be reformed in many other ways. I am thinking in particular of the people from Copibec, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Science and Research today. They basically told us the same thing they have told us in the past. There is recommendation 18 of a report by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage from 2019. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology has already done a lot of research as well, but I am referring to this recommendation because it could take the Copyright Act further. To be clear, the fair dealing provisions do not apply to educational institutions if the work is commercially available. This creates a whole imbalance in terms of funding for creation in the science and research publishing community. This law prevents full funding because universities do not have to pay dues or royalties. Another example of how the Copyright Act will need to be reformed in the near future is to include all the issues involving artificial intelligence, where interoperability will certainly have many possibilities, but also some limitations.
1419 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise on Bill C-294, an to amend the Copyright Act regarding interoperability. I want to thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for introducing this legislation.
As I have mentioned before, private members' bills go through a certain process in this House. This bill builds on previous work done in the House of Commons and at the industry committee. It is almost like a cousin to some of the right to repair work I have done in the past. In particular, this is work related to technological protection measures, or TPMs, which can interfere with the reuse or use of different types of electronics. Many times TPMs are done through a loophole in the Copyright Act that allows them to be used in a way that reduces competition, reduces the ability for products to have an extended life and reduces the ability for individuals to repair an item and for other companies to employ technologies.
What we have, basically, is a system that can be abused to stop devices from talking to each other and, importantly, from being part of the Canadian economy in many different ways. I know we often use it in agriculture, but it is also about other electronic devices, entertainment devices, programs, services and gear. What ends up happening is that we get a lot of waste and get a lot of different ways to reduce competition, affecting small business and innovation. We have a number of different situations where it can be used to create a monopoly in and dependence on different types of industries.
We heard at committee some really good testimony about this. Several witnesses came forward from across the country at the industry and technology committee to talk about the challenges we have. We also had some good testimony regarding what is going on with the United States and the fact that it is a little more advanced than we are in this situation.
This bill would not be the end-all, cure-all for many of the situations we have, but it is a great step forward to start dealing with some of the unfair practices that take place with TPMs. Again, TPMs are technological protection measures.
What they can do is lock in customers. That way, a customer who has been using a certain product, which could be in the farming industry, for example, or another one, is actually stuck with a supplier. That type of product might have been used with something else in the past, but because of the use of technological protection measures, a person is required to make a change and shift into a company's other products, not by innovation but by a designed attempt to circumvent other competition.
In the past, I have worked on the right to repair issue related to automotive. My right to repair bill has been retabled. It would provide more consumer protection, would reduce environmental degradation and would increase public safety.
In the past, automaker companies that were original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, would block the fixing or servicing of vehicles through non-competitive practices to ensure we had limited places to go to fix a vehicle. Why is that important? It is important because if someone has no choice, they are going to need to pay more, which is one thing. Also, people in rural, agricultural or remote communities may not even have access to some of the services and may have to ship or drive their vehicles hundreds of kilometres away, which is bad for the environment and bad for public safety.
I come from Windsor, Ontario, which is right across from Detroit, Michigan, in the United States. In my situation, I could get my vehicle fixed two kilometres away when crossing into the United States, but because Canada was behind with its measures, I could not in Canada. The suppliers, the original manufacturers, would not provide information. In the United States, for the most part people can get this through a number of measures, because its laws are much more restrictive on anti-competitive practices. It is still an issue there and different states are dealing with it, but it has a bit of a better situation.
I tabled legislation, which went through this chamber and passed, on the right to repair, but a voluntary agreement with automakers was created instead. We wanted a full law, but at that time, the industry agreed we could try a temporary solution to it. We basically got a field goal instead of a touchdown on the issue.
The problem is that we now have a new digital age where technological protection measures are much easier to embed, and some companies, like Tesla, have opted out of the voluntary agreement. The voluntary agreement has a number of manufacturers that have agreed to participate. There is no free cost to this and no rip-off going on in the aftermarket. It is a way to pay for the product, have a servicing application for the product and get the training and all the necessary things needed for the product. It is not a gift. It is not stealing. It is just a way of being able to use those things.
Unfortunately, if we look at Tesla, Elon Musk is just choosing to opt out, and it is ironic that the government is allowing Tesla to put charging stations in parks and recs but is not enforcing the act. We are actually going into discussions on that. Maybe the act should not be voluntary anymore. We will see about that, but it is unfair to consumers. This is one of the reasons I support this particular bill.
With the TPMs and access to technology, it is also really clear that the agricultural community needs this right now, as this issue creates inefficiency. It puts greater stress on those in the industry, whether they have small, medium or even larger farming establishments. It also creates more pressure for services, because some of these areas are remote, as I have noted before. One of the dangers is that there are fewer options because of the geography of remote or rural areas. We put equipment either on the road or in the fields that is not operating as if in prime condition, as it should be, just because of anti-competitive measures that use a loophole in the Copyright Act.
We have been warned that the bill has to be compliant with the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. This issue was raised at length. We believe we have found a kind of sweet spot for the bill, and we will now pass it on to the Senate for it to have a review. I think that is to the credit of the entire committee, which is known for being as co-operative and collegial as it can possibly be.
One of the reasons I think the bill should go to the Senate now and get passed is that the session is coming to an end. I say it is the end now, but we have a long four weeks and then another four weeks, and believe me, that is a long time. At any rate, it will disappear before we know it. Hopefully the bill will get to the other chamber, where senators will get a chance to look at it and get it done before the end of the summer so it can go to the next process at that time.
This is the policy outcome we want with this legislation. When this type of private member's bill comes forward, it is very much focused on a particular problem and issue. It is why its merits were proven at committee. I think that is important to recognize, because the committee could have sent it back here, and it could have come back at a point where we would not have supported it. However, we have decided to support it as New Democrats, first for the issues related to competition and the TPMs, which basically use a loophole to be anti-competitive, and on top of that, for the stress already placed on the agricultural community. This is one of those unnecessary elements that should be eliminated from it.
This could have been done a long time ago; it is not a new issue, but I do want to acknowledge that it is becoming increasingly complicated to deal with. That is one of the reasons we want this to be done in a relatively quick fashion, if we can. The other House will decide its agenda in terms of its time and what is at committee, but hopefully it can look at the bill and get it done, because there is no time to waste in the chamber on this. There will only be increased elements to consider with artificial intelligence and the other types of electronics and communication issues that take place among devices and goods and services, so this is one of the things we should clear up right away. I am happy to support the bill, and I encourage all members of the House to do so.
I want to conclude by thanking the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for bringing the bill forward. I think it is an important piece of legislation that would create at least one benefit to help people in our economy.
1574 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to express my appreciation for the member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his dedication and hard work in crafting Bill C-294. As someone who is familiar with the demands of crafting a private member's bill and who understands the complexity of the legal amendments, I recognize the effort and energy that goes into such a private member's bill. I believe that even small changes in law can profoundly impact an industry or an activity, and as such, I commend the member of Parliament for his foresight and fortitude in seeing the bill through.
I was part of the last review of the Copyright Act, and the process was like drinking from a parliamentary lobbyist's firehose. First there were calls from special interest groups to appear, and then there were calls asking to meet prior to the meeting. Then there were calls to come to committee to respond to the position of the first group by a second group, and by then the first group wanted a follow-up meeting. I think everyone gets the picture.
Copyright Act changes are full of winners and losers. Everyone wants to win, often at the expense of each other and especially consumers. This is where government is supposed to come in and make sense of it all. Unfortunately, we have seen time and time again that the government would much rather ignore issues such as these than make changes. It has preferred to make changes when needed to appease a trading partner by inserting a clause pertaining to copyright in an omnibus budget bill, rather than to see a comprehensive legislative change.
At a time when digital innovation is moving so fast, the government simply wants to wait around hoping no one will notice. Well, someone has noticed. We know that by tabling the bill, the member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has uncovered an important issue. I will go back to the copyright report.
In the report, we made several recommendations, which unfortunately the Liberal government has failed to pursue. For example, recommendation 19 states:
That the Government of Canada examine measures to modernize copyright policy with digital technologies affecting Canadians and Canadian institutions, including the relevance of technological protection measures within copyright law, notably to facilitate the maintenance, repair or adaptation of a lawfully acquired device for non-infringing purposes.
Most attribute this recommendation to the issue of the right to repair, which has been addressed by other private members' bills. In today's debate, I would like to focus on the last part.
Bill C-294 is all about the “adaptation of a lawfully acquired device for non-infringing purposes.” By the way, this is because some companies are utilizing technological protection measures, or TPMs. As we know, these technological locks are widely used to prevent users from accessing copyrighted content. While these rules were first put in place to protect the works of others from being stolen, such as a pirated video game or music album, we have seen manufacturers use these copyright technological protection measures to create new business models.
In one of these business models, they create a proprietary data ecosystem, one backed by terms and conditions, protected by law and copyright, and secured in the hardware by a technological protection measure. Farming is one of the first examples where this issue of interoperability has arisen.
Once a customer, like a farmer, agrees to purchase a piece of hardware, such as a tractor, a harvester or another piece of machinery, all the data and all the systems are powered using the manufacturer's technology. While this business model may seem reasonable and offer many benefits at first glance, it becomes problematic when a farmer purchases a separate piece of equipment and finds out that due to the TPMs they cannot use it. It is not that the tractor will not tow it, as it hooks up fine, but it will not function, as neither the data nor its operating system allows for interoperability.
First, this raises costs for the user, as the farmer paid for this expensive piece of equipment from another company, so there is that loss. Second, it hurts innovation and productivity, as that piece of equipment, despite it being from a rival company, may arguably lead the field among that kind of specialized equipment. That company would lose the sale, and the farmer would lose the productivity gain in using a different specialized piece of equipment. This hurts innovation overall, as firms that could make or used to make these specialized pieces are cut out of the game entirely due to this business model.
Some would ask what is wrong with that; that is competition. Well, real competition pits products and services against one another, rewarding innovation and productivity, not copyright and exclusivity. This is where Bill C-294 comes in. The bill proposes to amend the Copyright Act to allow consumers to bypass TPMs for the purpose of achieving interoperability, like in my example of the farmer.
The right to interoperability is critical for consumers. In today's digital age, consumers expect to be able to access their software seamlessly on different devices and platforms. Technological locks prevent this from happening and limit consumers' right to use their purchased equipment for non-infringing purposes. Therefore, as we have heard, this argument applies to more than just farming.
The Internet of things, where every device or part has sensors or relays information, raises important questions. A good example is the standard charging cord. If a consumer purchases a generic charger that meets the specifications of a device like a phone or tablet, it should work. I contend that a phone or tablet company should not be able to deny a consumer's wish to use a different charging product just because it was bought from another supplier and works as well as the one the tablet company might offer.
If I bought a car and was only allowed to have it serviced by the manufacturer's approved vendor or was only allowed to install its approved parts, which of course would have a chip in them, there would be benefits to me and to the company. For instance, I would be eligible for a longer warranty or for discounts, I would get performance data and I would have a plan for when each new part should be replaced, so I could budget accordingly. However, what if I chose a different part or wanted to stick with a trusted mechanic? What if the car manufacturer designated under my warranty that if I used a generic part that worked as well but was not the official authorized part, the car would not start or the manufacturer might void the warranty? I am picking on that industry, and those who work in it would say this is unfair. However, is it unfair? What if a company decided it would change its model, as Microsoft and Apple did in the 1990s and 2000s, in terms of what browsers, programs or apps would be available on their networks or devices?
This is why Bill C-294 is so important. We want to see competition and innovation. We want to see profitable companies hiring workers, making investments and paying taxes, but not with a business model that disables choice by limiting interoperability.
It is also my hope that other members of Parliament will look at the example of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and show the same entrepreneurial, competitive spirit, looking at how they can make changes to the Copyright Act that are necessary and needed. This is particularly important because the government looks more and more listless; it does not want to tackle these tougher issues outlined in the recommendations in our copyright report that. To this day, they have been ignored or, worse yet, sold out policy-wise for expedience. The government has done this rather than trying to build a truly competitive copyright system.
In conclusion, the right to interoperability is crucial for consumers, and Bill C-294 proposes to amend the Copyright Act to allow consumers to bypass TPMs to achieve interoperability. This amendment would benefit consumers, promote innovation and create a more competitive marketplace. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will start with you, but I encourage all members of this place to support Bill C-294 and to recognize the right of interoperability and how important it is for consumers and businesses alike. I hope that members of this chamber support the bill and that the other place takes it up quickly.
1446 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to express my support for Bill C-294, which is now at the last step of its study in the House of Commons. I would like to congratulate and thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for bringing forward this initiative for us to consider.
Bill C-294 proposes a measure that removes an important barrier to the interoperability of products in the copyright framework. The Copyright Act already includes an exemption permitting the circumvention of technological protection measures, also known as TPMs or digital locks, to make two computer programs interoperable. However, with the increasing number of software-enabled products that include digital locks, such as smart phones and farm vehicles, achieving interoperability often goes beyond making two computer programs interoperable.
Bill C-294—
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:30:04 p.m.
- Watch
I will interrupt the hon. member at this point.
It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order has dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that, in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments and does not insist on its amendments to which the Commons disagreed.
The Senate takes note of the Government of Canada's public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, accordingly.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:31:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I heard the member's response in regard to her personal position on the price on pollution. In the last federal election, 337 Conservative candidates made it very clear that they supported a price on pollution.
They are being somewhat hypocritical now to take a completely opposite position. My question for the member is this: Does she or the Conservative caucus feel any obligation whatsoever, given that it was an election platform, to the promise made to Canadians?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:32:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I already addressed that question earlier. Why do we not talk about the measures that could actually help reduce global emissions? This is what the Liberals say they want to do and are failing to do through their carbon tax, having missed every single emissions target except in the one year that governments locked Canadians down. It is LNG—
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:32:38 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, a quick question for the hon. member for Lakeland.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:32:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate and to ask a question of my very learned colleague from Lakeland. She is brilliant when it comes to the oil and gas sector.
It is unlikely, but is there anything in this budget that will actually help the oil and gas sector? If there is nothing, what could we do as Conservatives to make sure that we get the oil and gas sector up and running when we have the ability to govern?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:33:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this budget actually admits that the Liberals broke their own regulatory process for traditional sources of oil and gas and will now harm ever-increasing attempts at private sector investment in renewable and alternative energies in the future. There is $1.3 million in this budget allotted for regulators to “improve the efficiency” of assessments and another $50 million to help participants navigate Liberal red tape after eight years.
Let me just finish, please, the point on LNG. In the last eight years, 18 projects have been proposed in Canada. Only three have permits, and zero have been built. In the same time, the U.S. has built seven. They have approved 20 more, and they will build five more this year alone. Meanwhile, allies around the world are begging for Canadian LNG to help meet their energy needs and lower global emissions. That is what the government should focus on promoting.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak about such an important democratic exercise, specifically the budget and its implementation. A budget provides a framework and a guide for the government's policy agenda. It is normally quite thick and takes a while to analyze. This bill is huge, I have to say. The government has thrown a lot in there. This type of bill is called an omnibus bill.
There are many items in the budget, but a lot of reading between the lines is still needed. The government announces things without really describing them, so we have to guess what its intentions are, what those things mean and when they will be implemented.
In this budget, I noticed that the government wants to differentiate between the investments that have already been announced and those that are forthcoming. To do that, it is putting different markers at the start of each line. Checkmarks are used for investments that have already been announced. That implies that it has been done. Arrows are used for upcoming investments. When I flip through the budget, I see a lot of checkmarks. That means that the government is announcing things a second time. That is a rather odd strategy. Announcing an investment twice does not double the amount. That is not how it works. The government needs to stop treating us like fools.
It is difficult to see what new announcements this government is making. For example, in the housing section, all we see are checkmarks. There is nothing more for the regions of Quebec, despite the fact that they too are experiencing a housing crisis. The housing crisis is not something that is only happening in big cities. There is a crisis in the largest regions of Quebec and in the smallest, and I am sure that the same is true elsewhere in Canada. Unfortunately, the funding is not reaching the smaller regions.
I do not like it when politicians criticize everything all the time. We see this every day, and I believe it does nothing to counter the cynicism people feel toward politics and toward elected members who find fault with everything.
I looked at the budget that was brought down in Quebec City shortly before the one in Ottawa. The opposition parties had some harsh criticisms. They ranted and raved, saying there was nothing good in the budget. I decided I would do my homework and acknowledge the good things when it was Ottawa's turn. It is nice for our constituents to see us commend things instead of always criticizing the government. It is nice to note the positive things, the aspects that are good, while pointing out what could have been done better.
When I received the federal budget, I realized that it would be hard to point out the good things because there are not that many, especially when I look at what Quebeckers were asking for. Often, what the Bloc Québécois suggests aligns with what Quebeckers are asking for. What Quebeckers want is what we are going to bring forward and ask for in the House of Commons.
As I was saying, the bill includes nothing for housing, nothing for seniors, nothing about the EI reform we have been asking for for years, and no long-term solution to health care underfunding. I am willing to recognize the good points, but is it that hard to meet the public's expectations?
Still, I did want to go through the process of trying to find good things in this budget. For example, the government seems to want to resolve, once and for all, the uncertainty around the calculation of the taxable capital gain on intergenerational transfers of small and medium-sized businesses, especially farms. That is good. At last, this is happening. Farmers have been talking to us about this issue for a long time. Will it be resolved soon? We hope so.
Another good thing in Bill C-47 is that the government is planning to establish a real employment insurance board of appeal by incorporating elements of Bill C-37, which was introduced before the holidays. Great, that is a good thing. That is progress.
However, in all honesty, what we would have liked to see is nothing less than EI reform. That is what we have been asking for for years. Every year, unemployed workers' advocacy groups in every region of Quebec are promised that EI reform is coming and that it will be in the budget. They have been hearing this since well before 2015. Every time a budget is tabled, these groups realize they have once again been taken for a ride.
Need I remind the House that about 60% of people who lose their jobs cannot get EI, even if they paid into it with every paycheque? Need I also remind the House that it is worse for women and youth because many of them work in non-standard jobs?
The only other EI measure in the budget is a one-year extension of the pilot projects to provide an extra five weeks of benefits in regions where seasonal work is particularly prevalent.
We can hope that this is good news for our ridings, but obviously there is a “but” because only unemployed workers who have access to EI can benefit from that. As I was saying, unfortunately, 60% of seasonal workers are excluded from the program. Yes, it is a good measure, but there is always a “but”.
The problem is that the measures are temporary and ill-conceived. That is what workers in my area have been complaining about for years. We wonder whether it would be possible for the government to have a more long-term vision, or any kind of vision at all, really. The government seems to think only about tomorrow, not about what might happen in the coming years. It cannot keep using one-time cheques and temporary measures, because that will never really solve the problems that have been going on for far too long.
It is a little disappointing, and it is kind of symptomatic of this government. I believe that it would not be that difficult to put in place a more well-thought-out measure, one that might perhaps take more than two weeks to create. I understand that EI reform cannot be done quickly, but people have been proposing solutions for years, and everyone has been weighing in and saying that there are solutions and they just need to be implemented.
I will quickly address another point that my colleagues have already brought up. This is the proof that this whole thing is half-baked. Bill C-47 contains items that were in Bill C-46. We thought this meant that the GST would be doubled once again and that there would be an extra $2‑billion top-up for the health transfer. It was a nice surprise for us, but it was actually just a little mistake. When Bill C‑46 was passed last week, the government forgot to remove those items from Bill C‑47. These are really rookie mistakes.
I will now talk a bit about the environment. I see that time is flying and I have a lot of things to say. The government is announcing significant sums of money for the transition to a low-carbon economy. We are talking about $80 billion over 10 years. That is a lot of cash.
To me, the energy transition means transforming our energy sources, our economic model, our consumption habits and our vision of production. That, in my opinion, is where we should be investing our money, but that is not all the government's vision. No, the government says it wants to continue to do everything the same way, but by polluting less. Obviously, we wonder how that could be done and how we can do the same thing and hope for a different result. How can we increase production while lowering greenhouse gas emissions? The government says it will be easy with carbon capture and storage technologies. Oh, that is interesting.
Now we are left to wonder whether it actually works. No one knows, because it is virtually non-existent in Canada. The Minister of Environment himself said in a Radio-Canada interview in 2021 that he wanted to lower expectations around this technology. He said that the government wanted to invest in these technologies, but added that it must be understood that nothing will happen overnight. He said that this is not the best way to reduce our emissions over the next few years. He also said we are going to need a lot of new technologies in the years to come, including things like carbon capture and storage. He said we are several years away, maybe a decade, from commercial use. That is what the minister said in 2021.
Between you and me, I would not count on it too much. This is the same government that announced in its 2015-19 policy agenda that it would ban single-use plastics by 2021. However, that ban was only put in place a few weeks ago, and it is 2023, so we will not put too much stock in that. Considering that Canada began developing this technology in 2021, perhaps we can hope that it will be ready for 2031.
The problem is that the government has set greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the next milestone year is 2030.
The government's plan for 2030 is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45%. The Minister of Environment often says that our emissions are going down, but everyone knows that was because of the pandemic. Even in 2020, emissions started to go up again due to transportation and oil and gas production.
I see my time is up, and I am ready to answer questions about the environment.
1677 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I always appreciate because she speaks so eloquently. She touched on several topics in her speech on this very important bill.
Bill C-47 is important because I believe we will achieve our government's goal of helping Canadians while being very fiscally responsible.
One of the concerns that my colleague talked about is housing, and that speaks to me because I represent Orléans. Our government has implemented a number of measures, and if we look at the history of Canada, we are probably the first federal government to put forward a national housing strategy. We know we need partners, and we respect all jurisdictions. I would like to know if my colleague supports—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:45:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, they should be proposing something. When I look at the section on housing in the budget, I do not see anything new. I see nothing new for the regions of Quebec, nothing new for the Lower St. Lawrence, nothing new for the Gaspé.
I would certainly like to support a national housing strategy, but the money has to be made available. It is not just major cities that are affected. Housing, affordable housing and social housing, is not going to get built by re-announcing amounts of money that have already been announced. There is a need for housing across Canada. The need is great in Quebec and in the regions. However, the money is not there, so it is difficult to support it.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:46:04 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that the member mentioned indigenous issues. I am wondering if she could share her thoughts on a concern I have that this budget did not do enough for indigenous housing.
While it says that $4 billion over seven years will go to urban, rural and northern indigenous housing, that will not start until 2024 and will go over seven years. What are her thoughts on that policy?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:46:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her extremely important question. I have two first nations communities in my riding, so I am well aware of the issues. I know that they too are facing housing challenges.
This is nothing new. It has been an issue for a long time. We keep bringing it to the attention of the federal government, which throws us a few crumbs in the hope that they will solve all the problems. It is definitely not enough. As my colleague mentioned, we will not see any of that money before 2024.
I think the government could be more proactive in addressing the country's housing needs, in both indigenous and non-indigenous communities. The need is great. We are seeing it more and more. The government could certainly have done more with this budget.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:47:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to keep talking to us about the environment, in connection with the budget.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 6:47:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to continue talking about that, because it is extremely interesting. I was talking about how many megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions Canada produces. It was 670 megatonnes in 2021. Our levels are obviously lower than they were in 2005, which is good, but it is important to remember that, when we say we want to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 40% or 45% by 2030, it is compared to the number for that base year. When we look at the overall picture right now, we have only reduced our emissions by 8.4%. We have a long way to go, and 2030 is not that far off.
We often hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change say that we are a quarter of the way there and that everything is going well. When we are at 8.4% and we are trying to reach a target of 45%, I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that we are a quarter of the way there, particularly when this budget is focusing on technologies that have not yet proven to be effective. It is being said that these technologies will be ready in 10 years and that they will start giving results in 10 years. By then, 2030 will have come and gone. What are we actually relying on to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
I think that investing in these technologies is an underhanded way of continuing to give public funds to oil and gas companies. We are telling them to continue to produce but to pollute less as they do so.
280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
