- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/18/24 5:53:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciated a number of the comments the member made. I can understand why, through technological changes and advancements in web design, consumers rely more and more on Internet banking.
The member gave the impression that the reason he is voting against the budget bill is that specific issue. Is my interpretation right, or are there other aspects to the legislation the member opposes?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 3:28:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons to have a grocery code of conduct, which would be to ensure that there is more transparency and accountability in all aspects of the food chain.
That is why I made reference, in my concluding remarks, to farmers. I focused on Manitoba, but that same principle can be applied throughout Canada. We have the best producers in the world with the quality of the product and the food. We play a very important role in the world for food. It is important that we not only continue to support our farmers and producers but also look at ways to ensure farmers are getting their fair share of the value of the products they produce.
One of the ways we could do that would be by looking at the grocery code of conduct to ensure that the big five grocers, in particular, and others buy into it. We need to ensure there is more transparency and accountability so the producers are getting a better price for the products they are producing. We have strong advocates out there for that. I cited a few of them. One I recently had the opportunity to tour was Peak of the Market, which emphasizes the importance of vegetables. People do not realize that things like onions and potatoes are grown and supplied year-round.
There are all sorts of mechanisms, whether they be budgetary measures or legislative measures, that the government has been using to support not only our producers but also, most importantly, the consumers of the products. This is because we are very much aware of the cost of food. It is nice that this is going in the right direction, and that has taken a lot of work being done by a wide spectrum of individuals, including governments of all political stripes. I believe there is still more to do, and we are committed to doing just that.
324 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 1:41:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will start off by indicating that I do not want to come across as someone who is going to defend the big five grocers, whether it is Loblaw, Metro, Sobeys, Costco or Walmart. I do not think that they need any advocates on their behalf on the floor of the House of Commons.
I am genuinely concerned about the cost of groceries, and that is nothing new. It is something I have been concerned about for many months, or in fact, for the last number of years. It is a genuine concern. It is something the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister, has been raising a great deal of concern about. It is not like it is something that has just happened over the last few months.
We can talk about there being issues related to groceries, even prepandemic, and the lack of competition. It is very real, and unfortunately, Canadians have had to pay a price for that. It is one of the reasons we have given it a considerable amount of attention.
Members will recall when the issue started to really heat up. The Prime Minister and the minister responsible were saying that we wanted to call on those big five grocers that, in essence, have about 80%, or maybe a little higher than that, of the market. It is an area we should all be concerned about. That is the reason they have been called before the government. That is the reason they have been called before a standing committee.
To try to give an impression, in any way, whether it is coming from the Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc or anyone else, that the government is not concerned about the issue is just false. Over the last number of years, we have come up with thoughts, ideas and actions, whether they were budgetary measures or legislative measures, to try to hold them to account or ensure that there is a higher sense of transparency and more accountability in that area.
It is really quite encouraging to see that we have a House that is very much aware of the concerns Canadians have. One of the things that gets very little attention, which I want to highlight, is the food price data hub. It is something that has now been reinforced by the government. We want to make sure that Canadians are better informed about prices. Prior to the speeches today and the debate getting under way, I did a quick search on the food price data hub. I took a look at the province of Manitoba.
The food price data hub is complemented by Stats Canada. These numbers are fairly accurate. It provides an average price. Consumers can go there to get a sense of many different products and what they can expect for a cost. What I thought was interesting, because we are talking about the issue of inflation, was looking at some of the more common things.
For example, when we think of ground beef, and I am talking about in Manitoba, in November 2023, it was $11.22. It went up in December to $11.75, and dropped down to $11.10 in January and to $10.77 in February. Today it is at $11.37. Pork lion cuts per kilogram were $9.70 back in November, and I will just go right to March, when it was up by four cents.
A whole chicken per kilogram was $8.89 back in November, and it is actually down to $6.89. Chicken drumsticks, one of my favourites, I must say, were at $8.43 in November, and they went down to $7.96. When we talk about milk, a four-litre jug of milk was $5.72 in November and $5.72 in March. Butter was $6.29 in November and $5.99 in March. A 500-gram block of cheese was $6.65 in November and $6.59 in March.
The bottom line is that some of the prices have gone up and some of the prices have gone down. I like the general trend that we have been seeing in groceries, and I hope to be able to continue to see that trend. One of the commitments that the government made a while back now was to try to ensure that there is more price stability within the industry. That is something we want to see. It is one of the reasons we made significant changes to the Competition Act.
We often hear about the bread scandal. Many people following this debate today will have already heard it mentioned a couple of times. Members can imagine an industry that ultimately worked together to prop up the cost of bread. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in additional profit were made at the cost of higher prices for consumers. That took place virtually throughout the whole time period Stephen Harper was the prime minister. Ultimately, it ended up in the courts, and it was found that there was a price-fixing scandal within that industry. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. We have to realize that, if the industry were left on its own, we would see a lot more price-fixing. One of the roles that government has is to ensure that there is competition.
I look at it from a past perspective. We did, at one point, have six major grocery outlets. We had Loblaw, Metro, Sobeys, Costco, Walmart, and Shoppers Drug Mart. A number of years ago, when Stephen Harper was the then prime minister, Loblaw acquired Shoppers. There were no questions asked, and it was acquired. Many people, including me, would argue that this diminishes competition, and by diminishing competition, ultimately, in situations like this, we are going to see prices potentially go up. There were no Conservatives who talked about that. Today, the Conservatives talk about competition in the grocery market, but back in the day, when they were in government, they did absolutely nothing at all regarding this. In fact, the Conservatives saw one of the grocery giants fall to be taken in by Loblaw.
We can look at the Competition Act and the way the Conservatives filibustered that legislation, trying to prevent the government from passing legislation. That legislation enhanced competition. It provided more resources for the Competition Bureau. By doing that, the Competition Bureau is able to conduct market studies. It is better able to do enforcement. It is better able to look at monetary penalties, and many of the maximum amounts were raised as a direct result.
Most important, from my perspective, is that the Competition Bureau put into place a merger review process that was not of the same nature. For example, it was the whole efficiency argument, where a store would be able to come before the Competition Bureau and say that, by doing this, it would become more efficient and therefore able to provide better prices and more options for Canadians. That argument was thrown out through the amendments that we made to the Competition Act.
These are the types of legislative actions that the government has taken to ensure that there is a better sense of predictability and stability in rates for groceries. That is a positive thing. I will contrast that with the previous administration, and it is a significant change. When Canadians were going through the pandemic, we started to really see it on the inflation graphs. When the rates were coming to the peak, the government responded by taking budgetary action. The government came up with the grocery rebate for Canadians.
The rebate assisted millions of Canadians by giving them extra disposable income because of the increase in grocery prices at the time. Whether it is through legislative actions or budgetary measures, members will find that the government, as a whole, has been very supportive of Canadians. I do think that is worthy of noting.
If we look at other aspects of the NDP motion today, it mentions that the Liberals, as a government, are giving these corporate bailouts, or giving hundreds of millions of dollars to companies such as Loblaw and Metro. It makes reference to Loblaws specifically. What the NDP members are referring to, to the best of my knowledge, are the two ways in which the government, under the Prime Minister, have subsidized groceries.
One of them is through the subsidies for the north, and the other one was more of an indirect one. The government came up with a series of policies dealing with emissions and the environment. One of those policies concerned the way products are refrigerated and the technology advancements in that area. We said that, if a company were to modernize, then the federal government would step up and assist with, I believe, about 25% of whatever the total cost of the project would be.
There were 50 or so applicants under that particular program, and one of them happened to be Loblaw. Loblaw took advantage of a government program to reduce emissions. The total amount spent was about $48 million, and $12 million came from the government, under that particular program to reduce emissions. That one project, from what I understand, was to reduce emissions. I will ask members not to quote me on this, but I believe it was the equivalent of taking thousands of vehicles off the road. It enhanced the opportunity for Canada to continue its leading role in the manufacturing of refrigerators. It created jobs, was better for the environment, and yes, Loblaw was one of many applicants. That is the program they are accusing the government of squandering tax dollars for. I beg to differ on that.
The other program I am aware of is support for northern Canada. Those northern supports are very real. When we take a look at the nutrition north program back in 2011, the budget was just over $50 million. Today, that budget is worth just under $150 million. That does not incorporate the community food programs.
On the one hand, in the very same resolution that is being proposed, the NDP is being critical of the Liberals for not supporting northern food prices, stabilization and reduction. They are also saying that we are supporting corporate greed. I mentioned the two programs I am aware of, and I am open to anything else that I might have missed. That is a question I would love to have answered.
When we think of the nutrition north program, it is a program that the Liberals greatly enhanced from a financial point of view with contributions. We have also looked at ways we can ensure that there are technological advancements, so we can see more community food programs put into place. By doing that, we are providing opportunities for northerners to potentially produce more food and become more diversified, if I can put it that way.
At the same time, we are looking at ways we can continue to support lower-priced food in the north through that specific program. We have also invested, with this budget, in local food infrastructure programs, again, to enhance the ability of non-profits, in particular, to generate that local food.
There are many initiatives that the government has taken to support the stabilization of prices, and we see the impact of that when we look at the numbers. The numbers clearly show that we are having a relatively positive impact. However, contrast that to what the Conservative Party is saying. With the first two Conservative members who stood up to speak about this important issue, I do not think they even talked about the issue of food security. All they wanted to talk about was what they were hearing from Jenni Byrne, who is a lobbyist, by the way, for the big grocery chains. The Conservative spin, no matter what is being debated, is that they have to talk about the axe the tax bumper sticker.
The Conservatives are not contributing to the debate or adding any sort of value to it. All they want to talk about is calling an election and axing the tax. I find it unfortunate because there is a whole lot more that we could be doing here in the House of Commons. As much as the Conservative Party wants to focus its attention on one issue, we will continue to look at ways we can enhance opportunities in many different sectors so that Canadians will ultimately see things such as stabilized food prices. We are already starting to witness that, not to mention the many different programs the government has been bringing forward, one of which I hope to talk about very soon, once we get into members' statements.
Suffice it to say that I appreciate the thought of talking about the price of food, but I think that the motion itself is somewhat misguided. I realize that I will get a little bit more time after question period, and I will provide some more thoughts on that issue when we resume debate.
2184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:48:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the initiatives that I think we have not talked much about is the food price data hub. I find it quite interesting that we can actually educate consumers through a data bank that ultimately shows the average price of food. It is personalized to an individual's province, and it is interesting to go through it. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts in regards to having such data banks and how they could be of benefit, especially when competition is not where it should be.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 6:32:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in regards to small businesses, the government has been very supportive of small businesses in Canada and continues to work with small businesses. I think that our record will clearly demonstrate that through the pandemic, prepandemic and to where we are today.
With regards to the legislation, my question to the member is with respect to the efficiency argument and how the legislation would actually ensure that there is a healthier sense of competition into the future by the amendments to the Competition Act, particularly with the Competition Bureau's ability and enhancing that ability, to ensure that Canadian consumers are taken into consideration far more than they currently are. Could the member give his thoughts on that issue?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 12:14:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the legislation would enable us to strengthen the Competition Bureau, which is very important. It would also take away the efficiency argument in regard to when a large company acquires another one. A tangible example of that would be to go back to the days when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. We used to have Shoppers, a stand-alone company that provided all sorts of groceries. It was consumed by Loblaws in a multibillion dollar deal.
We all recognize that competition is healthy. It helps us keep prices fair for consumers. This legislation would make competition better in Canada, whether it is that aspect or the rental supports to ensure we have more homes into the future. This is good, sound legislation. One would think the Conservatives would be eager to see its passage.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, could the member provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of the legislation having a positive impact on Canadian consumers and future purpose-built housing?
Does the member believe that it would really contribute in a positive fashion?
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the most significant thing within the legislation is that it would get rid of the efficiency argument. For example, a company that wants to acquire another company is not going to be able to say that, for efficiency purposes, it is in its best interest to acquire that company and that it will deliver goods to Canadians.
It is a different way in which the Competition Bureau would be able to assess and, I would argue, get a better overall review of the marketplace and make better decisions that are in the best interests of consumers in Canada. That is a good thing. The more competition there is, the better.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my question for the member, I look at the legislation as a very positive piece of legislation and there to enhance and protect consumers. I can honestly say that we need to do what we can as a House and as a legislative body to look at ways to enhance protection for consumers. That is the reason we have seen the type of support that the bill has received in second reading, going into committee and now here getting it out of report stage into third reading with the expectation that the legislation will be passing.
The Internet is in many ways an essential service. With respect to the opportunities, they are more than just a social place on the Internet or a place where one can just communicate with friends. Today there is so much activity on the Internet and a lot of that is economic. It is a job creator. It has allowed more life in many of our rural communities and all regions of our country. It does not take too much to establish a website, for example, and establish a small business where people could be selling a product or a service. We are seeing more and more, literally thousands, of these types of entrepreneurs over the Internet.
That is one of the reasons that as a government, over the past six or seven years, we have seen a great desire to enhance rural connectivity. We recognize that, as the Internet continues to be that essential service, we have to ensure that rural communities are receiving the types of connections that are so critically important for those communities to be able to continue to grow and to prosper. That is what happened in many ways because of the Internet, or at least it contributes to it.
Understanding the importance and the essential needs of having an Internet service is a good starting point. If we follow that up with the speed levels and accessibility, then it starts to get right down to the nuts and bolts of what we could and should be doing, which is not only ensuring that communities have Internet but that they also have fast Internet because that does matter. We know it matters.
All we have to do is take a look at the advertising. The member made reference to the type of advertising that Internet service providers will publish. Service providers advertise that for $130 a month, this is the type of speed one could get with their service package. Is it false advertising if in fact people can at three o'clock in the morning click into their Internet and get that particular speed that they talked about for $130 a month? Technically, maybe it is not, but it is definitely somewhat misleading because at the end of the day we all know, understand and appreciate, as the member has pointed out, that if there is a much greater number of people participating on the Internet between six o'clock and 10 o'clock in the evening or on a Sunday morning, they will find that they are not able to achieve that rapid speed, whether uploading or downloading. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is more accountability.
I appreciate it, because it is not too often that we get Conservatives recognizing the value of the CRTC. There is a role for the CRTC in this and that is one of the reasons that back in May of last year we had the minister provide a policy directive to the CRTC, which talks about the importance of ensuring competition, enhancing the rights of consumers and promoting lower prices.
We are as concerned with price points for Internet services as we are with those of cellphones, but maybe that is a debate for another day. These are essential services that Canadians are dependent upon and we can appreciate the need for those consumers to be fully informed, or at least for those service providers to be obligated to be more consumer friendly with the type of advertising they are putting out and what they are telling Canadians.
I have had first-hand experience trying to access the Internet in both rural and urban Manitoba, and there is a substantial difference. That is the reason why, I put the question to my colleague across the way that recognized that, first and foremost, the legislation we are talking about today is really about consumer protection.
Often, when we see the contracts that come from these providers, we look at them and say we are interested. We look at the speed we will get for $135 and think it is pretty good. It gives us a sense of how fast that download can occur and how great those computer games are going to be or how quickly we are going to be able to place an order on the computer and get something delivered to our home.
It is in the details, but even on a computer screen, those details are in a microfont. I always find it interesting that, when we get those contracts, there are literally thousands of words to read in a size 6 font, and that is not only in this industry but also in many different industries.
I was at a computer store just about a week or so ago, and I got one of those forms. If I were to have taken my time to read it, I would have been there for another hour. I did not think that would be fair to the consumer behind me, so I just listened to what I was being told and felt comfortable and trusting enough to put my name to it. I do not know exactly what kind of warranty there is and all that kind of stuff, and I hope I never have to find out about the warranty point.
Having a more consumer-friendly market is something we should all strive for because we know that the constituents we represent, just like me in my example, are not necessarily reading all of the details, so when they see the speed they can get for a certain amount of money, the assumption is that 24-7, that will be the speed that will be available to them.
When we talk about 100-plus dollars a month, we are talking roughly $1,500 a year. It is a lot of money. It is a huge commitment, and it is not all that easy to get out of some of those commitments if we find we are disappointed . For example, if we are creating a business, and the window for our business sales and so forth is during that prime time, we may find that we do not have the speed that is necessary. That would be a bit of a disappointment.
That is the reason why, when I think of how government can move forward on this issue, I am glad we see a government that has recognized the importance of making sure people have access to the Internet, that the minister has sent out the directives and that the legislation is before us today.
1206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this issue. I will start off by giving a very clear indication.
When we think of Internet or cell services, it is really important to recognize the fact that consumers do have rights. It is so important that we look at ways we can enhance competition. Nothing frustrates me or my colleagues more than when we get contacted by constituents, and we want to be able to send a very strong message that we are very much aware of the issues and concerns. We understand the importance of competition and the impact it has on prices and want to highlight the fact that consumers have rights.
We have seen through government actions, both present and past, that we have a government that is clearly there to support consumers. I will make reference to that for those who may be following the debate, as well as to how technology has advanced to the point where we are having these types of discussions here on the floor of the House and outside of the House in some of the arm's-length institutions that we have established to protect the rights of consumers.
It was not that long ago when, as a parliamentarian, the Internet was a new, wonderful thing. I was probably further ahead than most of my constituents back in 1988-89 when we required a telephone line. The first thing we heard was a dial tone followed by pushed buttons, and then these weird hook-up connections. Some might say I am a little older than others as I can still remember the era of the old-fashioned Apple computer. We just waited for the simplest of things to appear on the monitor. Today the expectation is far greater and we need to recognize that advancement.
Computers today are than more just something that we use to play games, watch a video or do a Google search. Over the summer, I had the opportunity to meet with a couple of businesses that are very much there today as a direct result of having access to the Internet. Its speed is absolutely critical in terms of their future growth.
Today more than ever, people will consult with the Internet on all sorts of how-to repairs for something in their home, or to take a look at symptoms in regard to a health-related issue. Suffice it to say that the role that the Internet plays today is virtually an essential service.
The current government and all members of the House, as the member opposite indicated, it does not matter what side of the House one sits on, are all concerned about the issue of price points and consumer awareness, and what we can do to ensure that we are serving Canadians well through the responsibilities we have.
We do that in many ways. We have a Minister of Rural Economic Development who, over the last number of years, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in rural communities, from coast to coast to coast, to assist in building an infrastructure. Being in downtown Toronto, Vancouver or my own city of Winnipeg, there is a high expectation of fast Internet service.
One thing we can do to enable economic growth, whether in a high-density urban centre or a remote rural setting, is to invest in the Internet. Part of doing that is recognizing the services that are being provided through the private companies.
That gets to the core of the issue that my friend across the way is raising. Like him, all Canadians have seen the ads. The ads are plentiful with the whole idea of “up to” a certain set speed. A consumer looking at that would think that sounds awfully fast. For many consumers like me, it is hard to get an appreciation of how fast that actually is, let alone after factoring in the different times of day or a peak period versus three o'clock in the morning, which has been highlighted.
It has been pointed out that there is a difference in demand during a peak period versus those non-usage hours or those hours when the number of people accessing the Internet is down. In fact, often when one sees those packages one will see five or six items in one household that use the Internet as a way to be able to watch TV, communicate with a family member, do business transactions or do random Google searches. Whether using a desktop computer, a high-resolution TV or an iPad, the demand even within one household can be fairly extensive. These are the types of issues that will be best served if we are prepared to step up.
The member across the way brought forward Bill C-288, which has some real substance to it. As I pointed out, there was policy direction given to the CRTC earlier this year, around April or May. How can we, through using the CRTC as an arm's-length organization, ensure that we protect consumers? We might at times have personal opinions and concerns in regard to the CRTC, but, all in all, it does a relatively good job for Canadians.
The CRTC has a mandate. It has been asked to look at the ways we can ensure we are protecting the interests of consumers, such as mandating broadband testing and performance reporting, which is absolutely critical. One does not need to read between the lines of what the member is proposing. That is the thing that would be required to provide the type of consumer awareness that many of us would advocate for.
I look forward to hearing from the CRTC and some of the recommendations that it will bring forward. For me, put quite simply, I like consumer labelling that is simplified so that the average person can truly understand it. I want to know what sort of speed is there during that prime time. Being able to do a comparison between companies is really important. It is very hard to do that given the current system. That is why we do need change. I acknowledge that.
I am anticipating that, in early 2023, we will be hearing something that is positive and encouraging from the CRTC. I look forward to that.
1061 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to such an important piece of legislation. I am really encouraged. We often talk about consumer rights and what we can do to help our constituents. The member for Richmond Centre has brought forward a piece of legislation that really makes a difference. I applaud him for his efforts in wanting to make life better for all of us who like to use our hands to fix our products.
That is what this legislation is all about. When we stop and think about it, if we purchase something, as a consumer we should have the ability to play around with it and fix it if it breaks down. That is the essence of this bill. It is very much a consumers' rights piece of legislation. It would give people who purchase a product, should it break down in a month, two months or a year later for whatever reason, the ability to repair it.
I think my colleague from Avalon was in appliance repairs for 20-plus years. We can see how technology changes things. When I was 12 years old and pumping gas, I had a deep admiration for cars. I could pop a hood, change the spark plugs and do an oil change, and I began to understand how a motor worked. I did a lot of things with automobiles through my teenage years and into my twenties. It was simple to understand.
Nowadays, when we pop the hood, we are looking at computer technology. Some of these advancements are good for our environment. For example, I now have a turbo booster as opposed to an eight cylinder. We can do a lot of wonderful things. However, one thing we cannot do as much is the type of repair we could do in the past. Technology changes things. As the member for Richmond Centre emphasized, there are technological protection measures. Those TPMs are put into place by the appliance manufacturer to intentionally prevent people from doing the type of work they would have been able to do in the past.
That is why this important legislation is before us today. Others have attempted to get legislation through. I have a feeling that, given his persistence, the member for Richmond Centre will be successful in getting it through.
I believe the standing committee has a role to play. We understand the importance of the Copyright Act. We want to ensure that there is a creative environment in Canada and that people are investing in technology and other things and feel comfortable knowing their creativity will be supported by the government. It is one of the reasons I think it is important that it go to the standing committee. Based on the discussions and debate I have heard on this legislation, I am expecting it to pass second reading unanimously. Once it gets to the standing committee, I think we need to have a good, healthy discussion. I know the member is open to amendments that might make the legislation healthier for us.
Like the Conservative member who spoke about the agricultural community, a community with which I am so familiar, we also recognize, understand and appreciate the frustration the jacks and janes of all trades feel with respect to these products that are being purchased. Whether it is a cellphone, an automobile, a tractor, a combine or a combination thereof, or any form of consumer product that is out there, there are attempts by manufacturers to prevent those products from being fixed at the local level or, at the very least, to make them very expensive to fix.
As a direct result, we often start to see this “buy and throw out” mentality. I remember when people bought a colour TV back in the day, if something went wrong with it, they would get a TV repair person to come out. Whether it was a tube or the clicker or whatever it might be, it would get fixed and they would continue to use the TV. Nowadays, people buy a 30” flat-screen TV for about $150, because if they shop around they can get some pretty good deals. When that TV breaks down, it is off to the garbage. Hopefully it gets recycled. There is this whole idea of buying something that, when it breaks, costs too much to fix. People just buy a replacement. That happens far too often in our society.
We have heard some members talk about the environment, whether it is our landfill sites or even our recycle depots. Could we be doing a better job? Bill C-244 provides that opportunity to ensure that we have a healthier environment, that our consumers are better protected and that we allow for creativity. The government is not trying to prevent creativity and the protection of copyrights. It is important to recognize that. That is why I believe in having the bill go to the standing committee. It would be nice to hear from industry representatives, to see what they have to say about the products they actually produce. This is not an attempt to go after industry per se as much as it is to ensure that consumer rights are being protected. There is a difference.
Canada is a trading nation. We are very much dependent on and in need of expanding our borders by exporting our products and obviously importing the merchandise that Canadians desire. It is important that we maintain that two-way flow of trade. We have seen a great deal of that trade over the last number of years, and we have reached record numbers of trade agreements being signed.
When we talk about Bill C-244, what we need to keep in mind more than anything else is that it allows consumers to repair a product they own without violating the Copyright Act. That is what the legislation does. We are talking about the right to repair when someone acquires or purchases a widget, so that they are able to do the fixing at a much more affordable cost.
As well, a lot of people like to be able to fix or play around with the products they acquire. If any demonstration of that is needed, all one needs to do is look at social media, maybe by googling “how to” and whatever it is one wants to do. There are videos out there.
We need to encourage this bill all the way through. I look forward to seeing it come back to the House and ultimately get royal assent. It would have a profoundly positive impact on our communities throughout the country, and that is why I will vote in favour of this bill's going to committee at this time.
1139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
