SoVote

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Jun/8/23 4:56:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does the hon. parliamentary secretary understand that marine-protected areas only protect the fish that are in the sea? There is nothing in the marine-protected areas legislation that would prevent grey water dumping from cruise ships and other emissions from various boats. When the Liberals say how great a job they have done, there is skepticism by other people who say it is not what they have done. I want the member to think about when he is portraying things—

84 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 4:57:01 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary a few seconds to answer. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/8/23 4:57:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not going to advocate for those types of things to be banned outright, as the member seems to be implying. The government needs to continue to work with the B.C. government, other stakeholders and different industries. I am very much interested in what specifically the member is ultimately trying to recommend.

56 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/8/23 4:57:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we speak, forest fires are spreading, especially in northern Quebec, even though firefighters are demonstrating great courage as they work to put them out. This is a worrisome situation with disastrous consequences for the inhabitants of the municipalities that had to be evacuated on an emergency basis in recent days. I want to salute the great solidarity shown by my colleagues from Manicouagan, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Abitibi—Témiscamingue towards the people of their ridings who have been through a lot in recent days. Despite the rain and the suspension of the evacuation order, there is still a state of emergency in Sept‑Îles, and we know that there is presently a great deal of concern in Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Jamésie in northern Quebec. Yesterday, by the late afternoon, more than 12,000 people had been evacuated in Quebec, with almost 14% of them from indigenous communities. That number continues to grow. Tuesday evening, Chibougamau, the biggest town in Jamésie, and the Cree community of Oujé‑Bougoumou declared a state of emergency and ordered the evacuation of 7,500 residents, including those in cottage country. Early yesterday, over 450 people—after having spoken with the mayor of Roberval, I think it is now almost 700 people—were being sheltered at the sports centre in Roberval. This has been a stunning effort by the residents of Lac‑Saint‑Jean and the people of the Saguenay since evacuees from Chibougamau started flowing in on Tuesday night. Frankly, the demonstration of solidarity has been spectacular. Roberval's mayor, Serge Bergeron, who, I would point out, was my opponent in the last electoral campaign as the Conservative candidate, is a remarkable man and a wonderful human being. I applaud his incredible solidarity and the solidarity of the citizens of Roberval who quickly rallied in as many ways as possible to lend a hand to the families who had to leave their homes. Adversity brings out the best in human beings. I can say with assurance that we did witness that in Lac‑Saint‑Jean. Right now, in my riding, we can see solidarity and the best of humanity. I have had the honour of representing this riding since 2019. I was very moved by what happened. The wonderful engagement we see attempts to assuage the fears of people who are afraid of losing their homes, their property and sometimes even some of their companions, such as the animals that live with them. Frankly, it is difficult for most people, but there is solidarity that may bring some comfort amidst all that is happening. Teams from the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de Saguenay-Lac‑Saint‑Jean are on site to support evacuees. Professionals are there to support them in any way they can. People are extremely anxious. I know, because I have been on the phone the last few days. I spent countless hours on the phone. People are anxious, but at the same time, they remain positive and help each other a great deal. There are fires less than 20 kilometres from their town. Our hearts go out to them, sincerely. Given the urgency of the situation, the Town of Roberval immediately set in motion its emergency protocol and an internal crisis task force, involving the town's administration, the municipal councillors and emergency preparedness. The interesting thing is that there was a simulation a few weeks ago in preparation for a disaster scenario. Their team was prepared to act quickly. The scenario became reality. I note the fact that an exercise was held in preparation. This massive wave of support shows once again how much people come together in Lac‑Saint‑Jean. People were lining up to volunteer. People spent nights setting up cots. Social media is overflowing with offers for a place to stay. Stores opened earlier to accommodate people. There are pharmacies, dentists and grocery stores. There are people who wanted to help and still want to help out of pure humanism and that is really nice to see. It is nice to see even though the situation remains alarming. That is why, in light of the evacuations, our leader, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, moved a motion in the House of Commons to ask the House the following: to “stand in solidarity” with all those affected, to acknowledge “that climate change is having a direct impact on people's quality of life, and that it is exacerbating the frequency and scale of extreme weather and climate events”, to recognize that the “federal government must do more” and “invest more in the fight against climate change”, to demand that the “federal government stop investing in fossil fuels” to the detriment of renewable energy sources. Naturally, all of this must be done while respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces. Again, the situation is alarming. Experts agree that the worsening climate crisis will increase the number and intensity of forest fires in Quebec over the next few years. According to Christian Messier, professor of forest ecology at UQAM and the Université du Québec en Outaouais, the worst is still yet to come. We know that the boreal forest is an ecosystem that is historically conducive to fires. Global warming is making the situation worse. The regions most affected will be Abitibi-Témiscamingue, James Bay and northern Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. As we are seeing now, the north shore, Mauricie, Gaspé and even the Laurentians are not spared. Ironically, forestry and forest management are among the solutions of the future to fight climate change. The forest industry is most well-positioned to transition to the green economy. Those are not my words. That is what the experts are saying. Nevertheless, federal funding for forestry, as my colleague from Jonquière so aptly put it, is a pittance compared to what our good federalist friends are giving to the auto industry in Ontario and to the western oil industry. As my colleague from Mirabel so aptly put it, with a bit of humour, but in a serious way, when we look at the federal government support for the auto industry in Ontario and the oil and gas industry in the west, it seems that we are getting shafted. I completely agree with the member for Mirabel. It is not like the government has not gotten an earful from my colleague from Jonquière and I about our priorities for Quebec's forestry industry. I urge the federal government to clear the wax out of its ears. What is happening right now should be more than a wake-up call. In fact, the forestry industry is a prime industrial sector for the green economic recovery, with strong economic potential and an indispensable role in the fight against climate change. Another major win for Quebec when it comes to the environment is Hydro-Québec. Interestingly enough, contrary to a number of provinces in the rest of Canada, Hydro-Québec has never required any federal assistance. For some time now, the climate deadline has been forcing us to abandon fossil fuels. The clock is ticking, but the federal government is holding us back. At some point, we are going to have to open our eyes, stop talking, and start doing something. No one can predict the future, but if the Quebec government had all the power, it would certainly find it easier to go ahead with its own projects, its clean projects. Looking at Quebec's history, its love of the St. Lawrence and wide open spaces, its aversion to fossil fuels, I get the impression that making Quebec a country would allow Quebeckers to be greener and to take control of their environmental future. As we know, right now, when something falls directly within its jurisdiction, the federal government can take action in environmental matters without the agreement of the provinces. It can also decide to continue funding the oil and gas industry. In fact, Quebec is reluctantly helping to fund fossil fuel development in western Canada. Each year, Quebeckers see their taxes go to Ottawa. Billions of dollars are gifted to oil and gas companies in western Canada. Ultimately, this makes it impossible for us to be as green as we would like to be within Canada. That alone, for me, for my children, for our children, for future generations, is a damned good argument for Quebec independence. In closing, I would like to say this to those who have had to leave their homes in the last few days, to all those affected, directly or indirectly, by the fires, to the crews working to put out the blazes, and to all Quebeckers: Let us stand together in these uncertain times and let us not forget that the Bloc Québécois is with them.

1532 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Jun/8/23 5:07:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member speaking about forestry practices being really important in preventing forest fires. I know that Quebec has had a carbon tax for a number of years now. What percentage of the carbon tax in Quebec is allocated toward adaptation and prevention, such as was mentioned in his speech?

56 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/8/23 5:07:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I do not know the exact percentage, but someone is telling me that 100% of that money is used for green energy projects. I think that we have a model that works, that makes sense, that is realistic, that takes into account climate change, and that enables us to work for future generations.

60 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/8/23 5:08:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I found to be very compassionate, because it focused on the people who have had to be evacuated because of the wildfires and whose lives have been turned upside down. There is one thing that I think we do not talk enough about and that is the loss of expertise necessary to build water bombers in Quebec and Canada. Canadair and then Bombardier used to build water bombers in Montreal. Now, they are no longer manufactured here. It is a bit like what happened with COVID‑19. Canada is no longer able to produce vaccines because we no longer have any plants that can manufacture them. We are no longer building water bombers at this time. We need to borrow them from other countries, which makes us dependent on those countries. I know that my colleague likes independence. Does he think we should have the capacity to build our own water bombers?

163 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/8/23 5:09:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, not only do I love independence, but I love Quebec independence. I know that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie votes for a pro-independence party provincially. He is bound to one day join us on this side of the House. As for water bombers, the problem is that the federal government has never had any policies to support the aerospace industry. Once again, a Quebec industry has been sidelined, like forestry, in favour of Ontario's auto industry and western Canada's oil and gas industries. The New Democratic Party made a deal with our friends in the Liberal Party to get dental care. I figure that natural disasters cost us a lot of money every year because of climate change. If they had done a climate change deal instead of a dental care deal, we would have saved money and could have used it to create the dental care program. I wonder if the dental crisis is a greater problem than the climate crisis right now. I do not think that it is. Unfortunately, the New Democrats decided to support the Liberal government.

189 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/8/23 5:10:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our Conservative colleague mentioned our carbon exchange and the emissions permits we have in Quebec. When we sell emission units, a large part of the money, if not all, goes into Quebec's green fund and is used for various investments to make us more resilient to climate change and better able to adapt. Would my colleague not say that, in the western provinces that rely on oil, instead of complaining about the federal carbon tax, they should seize the opportunity to implement similar mechanisms to ensure that those provinces could also, independently, take charge of their own transition? Would it not be more constructive and rewarding for them to do that?

114 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/8/23 5:11:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not want to get involved in western provincial politics, but it seems that I have to. Unfortunately, successive governments in western Canada have never had a vision for the future. When things were going well in the western provinces and they were making a lot of money by reselling oil, instead of investing in diversifying their economy for the future or in social programs, they decided to cut taxes, thinking the good times would last forever. That is unfortunate. Let us look at what is going to happen with Trans Mountain. The government invested $30 billion in Trans Mountain and not a single penny will be returned to Canadians. In fact, we are going to lose money. We would have had the opportunity to invest that money elsewhere, including in the diversification of the western provinces' economies. We would have been happy to take part in that. Unfortunately, that will not be the case, and that is all the more reason for Quebec to be independent, because we want to stop subsidizing an industry that is doomed to failure.

183 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/8/23 5:12:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you and all of my colleagues. I want to take a moment to send my best wishes and thoughts to everyone affected by the forest fires right now. I am thinking of the community members who are supporting all those who are helping with the evacuations as well as my colleagues, the members for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Manicouagan and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I know that they are with their families and they travel a lot. They are supporting initiatives on the ground. It is very touching to see them get involved like that. I want to offer them, as well as the people affected by these fires, my full support. Those who know me well know that I grew up in Lebel-sur-Quévillon. Today, the town has been completely evacuated. I spent my childhood in James Bay. The latest images I have seen are extremely disturbing. Visibility is significantly reduced. Some of my family worked at the Nordic Kraft plant in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, which is currently surrounded by trenches to prevent the flames from reaching the building. The town has experienced serious economic hardship, but the plant recently reopened. The economy is getting back on track. I want to tell all these people that I am thinking of them and that the Bloc Québécois is thinking of them. We offer them our full support and our thoughts. We are nearing the day's end, and much has been said. As a final point, I would like to talk about dependence. We have been talking all day about dependence on oil, fossil fuels and cars. I was wondering how I could contribute to this debate. As members know, I always try to be constructive. It occurred to me that not much has been said today about the second type of dependence, or addiction, which is a very serious disease in Canada. I am talking about addiction to oil money within the public sector. The reality is that if we were not so addicted to oil money, if certain provinces were not so addicted to oil money to be able to deliver quality public services, if certain political parties were not so addicted to oil money and the oil lobby in order to function, if the Canadian government was not so addicted to the oil money it collects through corporate income tax, if there had not been so much development in the banking sector, which has grown significantly in Calgary in recent years, we would not be where we are today. However, we are in a situation where it always seems like the transition will be extremely costly because we need oil money so badly. There are many examples of this, and it is serious. This short-term, short-sighted attitude is serious. In the good years when the price of a barrel of oil is high, above $100, provinces like Alberta have made the choice to live solely off oil. For example, they had very low income tax rates for individuals, at 10%, with one level of tax administration. Some provinces have no sales tax. They complain about the carbon tax, but they do not have a provincial sales tax. These provinces are extremely dependent on fossil fuel royalties. Accordingly, when there is a market low, these provinces are very hard hit and want to continue producing more oil, even if it brings in little profit. When the market is strong, the provinces want to rake in surpluses. That is why these provinces are against any kind of transition. I will read some quotes that indicate how far we are from the transition. I am quoting politicians. The first is from May 2023. The politician in question said, “we don't want to see actual production cuts as an effort to achieve emissions reduction. So let's be very clear: we're not going to be endorsing production cuts”. That is goes completely against the recommendations for the transition of the International Energy Agency and the IPCC report. This same politician said, “As we engage in more and more work to effectively reduce emissions, there's likely room for production to increase”. Rachel Notley of the NDP in Alberta said this during the election campaign. That shows just how deeply rooted the problem is. We know that the current leader of the federal NDP was at odds with Ms. Notley in that regard at some point. We have to give him that. We must be honest. The leader of the NDP in Alberta finally said that she disagreed with the current NDP leader and that they would produce more oil. This did not stop the federal NDP from supporting the Alberta NDP, going door-knocking with them and being pleased that they were elected in Calgary and Edmonton. The day after the election, their parliamentary leader was ecstatic to see that this oil and gas party got tons of seats in Calgary and Edmonton, in violation of the rules of the House in the middle of question period. We could hear chants of “Calgary” and “Edmonton” in the House. Next we might have seen them stand up and shout that they too were oil and gas people, just less transparent about it. Ms. Notley said in 2023 that she disagrees with the idea that we should not partner with oil and gas companies when they are in a position to have such significant weight in our economy. Imagine the addiction. She says she disagrees that we should get out of oil, which contributes so much not only to Alberta's economy, but also to Canada's. That is where we are. When left-wing parties are in favour of oil and gas in the west, then it should come as no surprise that we are having a hard time advancing the idea of the transition. We therefore have the International Energy Agency saying that there is no need for new oil and gas projects and we should not develop any. We have a government with an environmentalist for Minister of Environment . I sincerely believe he is an environmentalist, but Canada's sick addiction to oil money is so deeply entrenched that he has no other choice but to give in and agree to Bay du Nord and its 3 billion barrels of oil. The Prime Minister promised trees during the election campaign. He promised to plant about two trees for each new barrel of oil he authorized. That gives us an idea of the number of barrels he is allowing for. Jean Chrétien, at the time, said that if he had given as much money to Quebec as to the tar sands, he would have won every Quebec seat. This mentality is ingrained in the Liberal Party. Let us take Trans Mountain as an example. There is something called the sunk cost fallacy. It is a cognitive bias, a situation where so much energy and money have been poured into something that does not work that people keep pouring money into it. They feel so bad about investing in a project that does not work that they keep investing. For some, it is their relationship as a couple. For the Liberals, it is their relationship with the oil in Trans Mountain. At first it was $7 billion, and then it was $9 billion, and then it was $13 billion, and now it is $30 billion. That is what the parliamentary secretary and member for Winnipeg North told us earlier. It is going to go up to $40 billion, $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion. He is telling us to just be patient until they realize that it is a bad infrastructure investment. People have to own up to their mistakes. That is Canada, because we have parties that always think in the short term. I have a message for the Conservatives, who have the shortest-term view of the bunch. Unlike the NDP, who voted today for a budget that contains $25 billion in oil subsidies and are not ashamed to say that they were proud to do so, the Conservatives are at least honest. They talk about the cost of living and about the carbon tax. They talk about people struggling to make ends meet. I would like them to know that, according to the people at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, who are not environmental extremists, Canadians lost $3.1 billion in insurable property in 2022 because of weather events and all the natural consequences of global warming. The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that the amount will increase going forward. Who pays for that? It is their constituents, the citizens, the people who go to the gas station and pay the carbon tax. In Fort McMurray, the recent fires caused $3.58 billion in damage. It is the most expensive disaster in Canadian history. I believe that the Conservatives want the best for people, but I think they are only thinking as far as tomorrow morning. They are not thinking about next year, 10 years from now, 15 years from now or future generations. I think they are good people who have the potential to open their eyes, to try to be less short-sighted, to think about future generations and to realize that every additional step towards more extraction is another step towards a huge liability that they will pass on to future generations. I respectfully encourage them to take a constructive look at the motion we moved today. We did it for our children and for theirs.

1632 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/8/23 5:22:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel seems to be extremely concerned about what is happening with the NDP in Alberta. I find that really interesting. I would like to bring his attention back to the environment and to what is happening in Mirabel, more specifically in Kanesatake, where, for years, there has been an illegal dump. Foul-smelling, toxic water is leaking from that dump, and it is having a real impact on people's health. Residents of Kanesatake recently organized a press conference to denounce the ping-pong game between Ottawa and Quebec on this issue. Many MPs were invited to participate. Both levels of government keep passing the buck, and the problem in my colleague's riding is not being resolved. I attended that press conference, as did the deputy leader of the Green Party. The member for Mirabel was invited, but he refused to attend. Why?

149 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Jun/8/23 5:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was the first issue that I began working on, even before I was elected. Unlike the NDP, I work in this riding every day and I understand that there are very sensitive issues, like safety and social harmony. I consulted all of the parties. We worked with the environment minister and the minister responsible for indigenous relations. We are still working on this. We worked with journalists and campaigned to raise awareness. We are doing it without putting on a show. What interests us is the environment, not putting on a show in other members' ridings.

99 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Jun/8/23 5:24:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will ask for some forgiveness from my colleagues, as my voice has been impacted by the smoke we are encountering in Quebec and Ontario and on this side of the country. I will remind colleagues that British Columbians in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George and I have been experiencing it for a long time. I am glad that in the last couple of days and the last week, if there is a positive that has come out of any of this, Quebec and Ontario have been waking up to what the rest of us have been dealing with for quite some time. In today's debate, I wish I had more time to speak to this because it is something we have lived with in my riding in the eight years since I have been elected. In 2017 and 2018, we had some of the worst wildfire seasons we have had in the history of our province. Indeed, in 2017, we had the longest state of emergency, which was over three months. We also had the largest mass evacuation in our province's history. Members will pardon me for my skepticism about the government ever doing anything, because it has been eight years since the Liberals have been in government and six years since our largest wildfire season and they have yet to do anything. They stand with hand on heart while a phony tear comes to their eye and say they truly, really care, yet two weeks ago, when I appeared at the natural resources committee, I heard the government cut funding to the wildfire resilience program. That allows communities to be fire smart and to look after themselves to make sure they are prepared for the next wildfire season. The government has cut that. That is shameful. My concern is that, after six years, I still have communities in my riding waiting to be made whole. Our colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has Lytton in his riding. It is totally devastated. The whole community is gone. The businesses there and that whole community have seen nothing from the government. These debates get very partisan. Of course, everybody takes shots, but let us remember that there are real costs to this. Lives and livelihoods are lost. Everybody has taken shots at the Conservatives over this time, but I will remind colleagues that it was our former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney's government that brought climate change to the forefront of international discourse. The acid rain treaty that we signed with the U.S. in the late 1980s and early 1990s was groundbreaking. It was the first time this debate really took place. Our friend from Kingston and the Islands railed on and on, for about the first 10 minutes of his 20-minute speech, about how our leader blocked and filibustered last night in his speech. He asked how we can sit as a party and be a party to this leader. How can the member sit in a party with a leader who has so many ethical challenges? I know our colleague from Kingston and the Islands to be a decent person, but over eight years we have sat and watched the Prime Minister face ethical challenge after ethical challenge, yet the member still sits there and is a good soldier for the Liberals. He cannot point fingers across the way. Our argument is that a tax plan is not a plan to fight fires. We have real people in real communities who are losing their livelihoods and losing their way of life, yet the government, in eight years, has done nothing. As a matter of fact, as I said in this discussion earlier, the Liberals have cut resources to the very thing they say they are doing. They stand there when they think it means something or when they want to get voted in, but after they get voted in they do nothing. In 2021, the Prime Minister, in the eleventh hour of that election, came to my home province, pledged millions upon millions of dollars and said that he was committed to finding a thousand forest firefighters. Two years later, the Liberals have done absolutely nothing, so pardon me if I am skeptical that, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the government will ever do anything with respect to climate change, wildfires and flooding. It is important that whoever is in power takes this seriously. The government is not.

753 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 5:30:14 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

82 words

Duty

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 5:31:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 5:31:21 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

29 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/8/23 5:31:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-294

Madam Speaker, it is a rare opportunity for me to address you twice in such a short period of time. I am sure you are delighted. I would like to take a few seconds to say that I am thinking of the people in my riding and all the organizations in my riding that are working very hard in these increasingly difficult economic circumstances, when housing and food prices are rising. My thoughts go out to them, given that the Bank of Canada raised interest rates yesterday. I have in mind the Centre d'aide et de références de Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, the Dépannage alimentaire de Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, the Centre de dépannage St‑Janvier, the Comptoir d'entraide populaire de Mirabel in Saint‑Augustin, the Centre de dépannage de Saint‑Canut, the Comité d'action sociale in Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac, the Communauté d'entraide de Saint‑Placide, the Armoire d'espoir in Oka, the Saint-François d'Assise parish in Oka, the Sainte‑Marie‑du‑Lac parish in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑lac, the Petite Maison de Pointe‑Calumet, the Centre d'entraide de Saint‑Colomban and all the other organizations that provide support in my riding. I want them to know that they are important to us and that we support them in these increasingly difficult times. That said, today we are debating Bill C-294 at third reading. First, I would like to thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for introducing this bill. I think it is a great initiative. I think, not surprisingly, he knows that we will support it. This is a very short bill that contains only two clauses. However, the length of the bill is no indication of the quality, because it is designed to resolve important issues related to the debate we had in the House on the issue of planned obsolescence. Essentially, this bill allows the owner of a device that uses an operating system, for example, to break the lock on the operating system in order to take full advantage of it and use applications in the operating system that are not provided by the company that created said operating system. This is essentially an amendment to the Copyright Act. We understand that creators have to make a living from their art, that it is important, that we have to take action against copying and against the unapproved use of a cultural good or, for example, an application, and so on. However, there are times when the consumer ends up paying a price. I will give a few examples. Today's phones are literally computers. They are not like the phones of the past. Mine is quite sophisticated, for example. These phones have operating systems. Theoretically, under current copyright law, the company that makes my phone could prevent independent app developers from allowing me to use those apps on my phone. These apps can be extremely useful, like the VaxiCode app we used during the pandemic, or GPS apps that prevent people from getting lost in the woods. Obviously, phone companies have been gracious enough to allow users to install apps of all kinds, but they do still have the right to prevent us from making full use of our devices. However, it appears that not all companies have been so gracious as to allow us to use other apps on their operating systems, which I think goes a bit too far. I will give the example of John Deere tractors. I represent an agricultural riding. Over 80% of the city of Mirabel is zoned for agriculture. Our farmers use very sophisticated machinery. Today, these machines are computers on wheels. The operating systems of these tractors have software to optimize the way fertilizer is spread. They come with all kinds of devices that can even coordinate farm machinery based on weather conditions, outside conditions, and so on. They are basically computers. Farmers think that an innovation market could spring up to allow third parties to offer all the technological innovations that John Deere could offer, but does not. However, when they buy their tractors, they are only paying for a licence to use the operating system. They do not own the operating system, so they do not have the right to improve the performance of a piece of equipment that they paid a fortune for. Those things are expensive. There is also the matter of code sharing. The company could say that people can develop apps if they want to but that it will not share its code. That is the kind of situation that my colleague's bill seeks to address. It is closely related to the issue of planned obsolescence. The House previously worked on the right to repair. What was the objective? The main objective was to give consumers the full value of a product that they paid for, by ensuring that they do not have to buy the same item again at full price when the original item still has years of life and use left in it. We therefore worked on the right to repair. We worked on planned obsolescence. That is a term that can be defined in a variety of ways, but basically, it refers to methods used by companies to ensure that, after a certain period of time, a period shorter than the full physical lifespan of the product, the product will no longer be usable. There are all sorts of keys and mechanisms that can be used to do this. How can one describe planned obsolescence? As I said, it can take various forms. A company may simply design a product that is less durable. It could launch new models so that the older model becomes out of date or incompatible with new software. It can make products impossible to repair because the parts are unavailable or prohibitively expensive. It can use the Patent Act to prevent parts from being manufactured, or it can use the Copyright Act, and so on. The original intent of these copyright laws and patent laws was not to prevent consumers from using their own property. The original intent was to allow the author of a work or the inventor of a new device to earn a living and ensure that a third party did not appropriate their own invention. Today we are in a situation where these laws are being used to prevent the consumer from benefiting. That is precisely what Bill C‑294 addresses. It is complementary to the approach taken by the Government of Quebec. For example, in 2019, the Liberal MNA for Chomedey at the National Assembly of Quebec introduced Bill 197, which sought to stop planned obsolescence. This bill introduced a sustainability rating. It stated that the replacement parts, tools and repair service required for the maintenance or repair of a good must be available on the market for a reasonable length of time after the purchase of the good. It includes a provision stating that the manufacturer cannot refuse to perform a warranty on the grounds that the good was repaired. We know how it works: If we do not go to the dealer because we do not want a monopoly, since no one likes monopolies, and we get the thing repaired for less somewhere else, we are told that the warranty will not be honoured. The Quebec government addressed this. The law is not yet in force. Europe has also addressed planned obsolescence. According to a European Union directive, member states are to amend their laws to classify products according to their repairability. Every product will eventually have a rating on a scale of 10 so that buyers know if the product is durable. This is good for consumers and for the green transition. Europe has a repairability index based on five criteria: the availability of documentation; disassembly, thus access to tools; the availability of spare parts; the price of spare parts; and specific criteria for various categories of equipment. In the Canadian context, this represents consumer protection. It is the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. No matter what Quebec does to protect its consumers, if the owners of operating systems, in this case, can use the provisions of the Copyright Act against the initial spirit of the Copyright Act to block consumer rights, this counteracts the efforts made by Quebec. In this context, I want to again applaud my colleague's bill. I thank my colleague for introducing it, and I recognize that his bill complements the work done by Quebec. I will repeat, as I did at the start of my speech, that we will support the bill.

1486 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Jun/8/23 5:42:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-294

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here tonight to speak to the bill presented by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Bill C-294, regarding interoperability, and the member who spoke previous to me, the member for Mirabel, who is my seatmate, spoke eloquently about the impacts and the structure of this on the agriculture industry, which I will come to. However, if you will provide me a little leeway, Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Speaker's riding and mine have had some dramatic forest fires these last two weeks. In the context of this bill and agriculture, I just want to stand up and thank a few people in the riding and in the Speaker's riding who have done an amazing job dealing with the issue of livestock that had to be evacuated. It is a huge issue. People do not generally think about that in these kinds of fires, but on Cape Sable Island in Shelburne County there was agriculture livestock, and a lot of it, that had to be quickly evacuated, because it is tough to move it slowly. They actually did not have an evacuation order, but they moved it out in case. They moved it to the exhibition in Yarmouth, in the Speaker's riding, and they were fantastic to deal with. They took in a lot of animals and kept them safe and healthy, as did the exhibition in Bridgewater, in my riding. It was a full house of livestock that had to be safely moved and stored, which is no small effort. I would like to thank both those organizations for all the volunteer work they did to protect the animals. In Bill C-294, the summary says that the enactment would amend the Copyright Act to allow a person, in certain circumstances, to circumvent, or get around, a technological protection measure, TPM, which is a technical term, to make a computer program interoperable, or in other words to make a computer program work with any device or component, or with a product they manufacture. On this bill, we need to start with what the purpose of the Copyright Act is, and the member for Mirabel touched on it. The Copyright Act provides exclusive rights for authors and creators of works. It can be an artistic work, a dramatic work, a musical work or a literary work, and the latter category encompasses computers and computer programs. These exclusive rights are collectively referred to as “copyright”. Copyright provides the rights holder, the person who created the work, the sole authority to perform specific acts vis à vis the product. They control what happens to their product. That is the purpose of copyright, and these rights are listed under section 3 of the Copyright Act and include the sole right to reproduce the works, so that the owner and creator is the only one who can reproduce that work, or they can choose to rent that work out to somebody else, and that includes a computer program, like when we sign up for or buy Windows. We buy a licence, but we we do not actually own the software. That is owned by the manufacturer, but the manufacturer can license those out. A copyright generally lasts for a person's lifetime plus 50 years. Other persons may use a protected work under certain circumstances. The owner of a copyright may assign it to another person. They may also license the use of the work with or without conditions, often in return for a payment or royalties. What is this act doing on artistic copyright related to the issue of technology and specifically farm equipment? An important part of that is that section 41 of the Copyright Act defines circumventing a TPM, which I referred to earlier, as descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an encrypted work or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating or impairing the TPM. In other words, circumventing it is trying to find a way to use that computer program or work that one was not authorized to use as a person who is not the original rights holder. This is an important part of what this is trying to get at. The member who is putting this bill forward worked quite extensively with people in his riding who are concerned and having trouble delivering their businesses. With increased computerization in the development of everything that we buy or do, whether it be a cellphone or even a fridge now, as everything has computer chips the technology can be used to actually be anti-competitive. It can be used to make it exclusive so that nobody else can access or connect another device to that device, in order to make someone buy their other devices and not be able to buy a competitor's device. It is becoming more difficult over time for manufacturers to market their innovative products if they cannot connect to the original product if it requires that. Large companies such as John Deere, which the member for Mirabel mentioned, have introduced what are called digital locks on machinery. This move restricts access to repair or interoperate the tractor or equipment with another manufacturer's equipment. One cannot even go in and repair it, whether it is on warranty or not, unless it is through an authorized dealer. That is a primary concern as to operating farm equipment because when a repair of this type of equipment needs to be done, it is not done when one is not harvesting, but done when one is out in the field. It is very difficult often to get those who are the only authorized repair people to actually be able to come out, repair that equipment, get the parts and do it all in a timely manner so that one can get back to one's work in farming. Every day lost is an important and costly loss for that farmer. As a result of all that, those who are significantly disadvantaged by this have been calling for changes that would safeguard both the right to repair and the right to connect one manufacturer's equipment to another manufacturer's equipment. One may prefer a different combine from the combine that John Deere has one's equipment hooked up to. That is a big issue. What this bill attempts to do is allow, in certain circumstances, an individual who owns that equipment to seek repair from suppliers or even on their own by accessing it and getting it repaired without having to go to that authorized dealer only. That “authorized dealer only” concept is a sort of monopolistic trait that says that if I can only go to that dealer then I am sort of held captive to what that dealer is going to charge me for those repairs. It prevents a free and open market. We are going to see this not only in farm equipment but with everything in our lives. Try to buy one's home appliances from different manufacturers. If they are all computerized and one is from one manufacturer and the other from another manufacturer, although they are supposed to be able to “talk” to each other they will not be able to because of these restrictions around TPMs and the inability to do this. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands began working with all of these groups and put together, as the member for Mirabel said, a very simple bill. It is not very long. It is two clauses and it repairs that simple clause in the act. I would commend the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for tackling this. Sometimes it is confused with the right to repair, which is another private member's bill before this House, which is the right for us to repair a certain thing in a certain way. This bill makes sure that, if one wants to connect two pieces of equipment together that have technological protection, one will be able to get that done without breaking the law. As we consider this going forward, I will be supporting the bill. We studied it at the industry committee. It is now here for third reading. I would encourage all members of this House to support this important bill, which is pro-competition.

1393 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 5:52:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-294

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-294, now in its final stage of consideration in the House of Commons. I am also pleased by the overwhelming support received for this legislative initiative thus far. I want to thank our colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands who brought this important initiative to the House that seeks to remove a copyright barrier to interoperability, which would benefit all Canadians, including those in my riding of Yukon. The Copyright Act, as it currently reads, represents an obstacle to Canadians who really wish to make their products with functionalities enabled by software, such as smart phones and farm vehicles, interoperable with other products, devices or components. The Copyright Act currently represents an obstacle to interoperability because it generally prohibits that circumvention of technological prevention measures, also called TPMs, or digital locks. Manufacturers often include digital locks to protect software in their products to prevent unauthorized access and copying. The Copyright Act also includes an exception that permits the circumvention of digital locks to achieve interoperability between two computer programs. However, being limited to the interoperability between computer programs, this exception is not sufficient to cover the needs of Canadians and the market. With the increasing number of products with functionalities enabled by software, interoperability also means ensuring that parts or components added to such products be compatible and exchange information with these products' software. As the member for South Shore—St. Margarets just explained, these parts and components actual can then talk to each other. Without being permitted to circumvent digital locks to access the product's software, it remains difficult to make these products interoperable with other products, components and devices. This obstacle can notably impact Canadians when manufacturers decide to introduce new technologies that are not compatible with the previous generations. In such scenarios, software-enabled products we can own easily become only good to gather dust next to our VHS players. Bill C-294 specifically seeks to address this issue. The bill proposes to expand the scope of the current exception in the Copyright Act, so the copyright framework allows Canadians to circumvent digital locks to make a computer program, or a device in which it is embedded, interoperable with another computer program, device or component. Bill C-294 does not call into question the importance of digital locks in the copyright framework but stresses the importance that the Copyright Act provides efficient exceptions and limitations to digital locks when they harm the legitimate interests of consumers to have control over the products they own. Legal protection for digital locks is an important enforcement regime in the copyright framework with roots in international treaties. Canada has obligations to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of digital locks used by copyright holders under the WIPO Internet Treaties and certain free trade agreements. Digital locks are meant to grant creators more control over the distribution of their creative works in the digital marketplace by preventing others from copying, accessing or using the fruits of their labour without their permission. This enforcement regime ensures the Copyright Act continues fostering Canada's flourishing creative economy by providing creators with an efficient mechanism to obtain a return on their investments. Protection for digital locks was originally promoted as a tool to encourage creative industries to offer their works, such as songs, books and movies, on the Internet and in other digital forms. It has never been the intent of the protection for digital locks in the Copyright Act to prevent the interoperability of products. Bill C-294 is an essential measure to rebalance the equilibrium of interests and provide consumers more control over the products they own and use, while also preserving incentives for creators in the Copyright Act. For instance, Bill C-294 would solely permit Canadians to circumvent digital locks for the purpose of interoperability. Bill C-294 would not facilitate copyright infringement. Protection for digital locks and copyright infringement are two distinct regimes in the Copyright Act. While persons may be allowed to circumvent a digital lock on a work to access it, they are not allowed to make unauthorized copies of the work unless an exception to copyright infringement also applies. Bill C-294, with the amendments reported to us by the committee, would ensure that the expanded interoperability exception permitting the circumvention of digital locks would not be available if it involved an infringement of copyright. I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-294, which is a pledge to Canadians that they should not be frustrated by digital locks when they seek to render the products they own interoperable with a new part, component or device. I acknowledge that the scope of this bill is limited. It is an exception to the prohibition to circumvent digital locks that addresses only one aspect of facilitating interoperability. As such, it does not encourage industries to develop standards ensuring interoperability between different manufacturer products and ecosystems. However, I am persuaded that the exception proposed in Bill C-294 would have positive impacts in offering more opportunities for Canadians to make their products interoperable. That is especially the case with the amendments reported by the committee, which ensure that the exception would apply to independent service providers, helping the owners of products to achieve interoperability. Bill C-294 also aligns with the government's commitment to provide Canadians with a right to repair by encouraging the prolonging of the life cycle of products and with its commitment to support innovation and foster follow-on innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises. This is practicality in action. It really is about the choice of products for Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers. I look forward to the vote and invite my colleagues to support Bill C-294 to send a strong signal to Canadians of the importance that the House of Commons gives to this great initiative.

993 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 209