House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 231
CONTENTS
Friday, October 6, 2023
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 231
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, October 6, 2023
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act
The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the debate on Bill C-49. This is an important issue for my region. It is an important issue for me. Two of the main reasons that I decided to seek public office in the first instance was that I care deeply about creating jobs in Atlantic Canada and want to do more to protect our environment as we build a clean economy. These elements are key to the purpose of Bill C-49 and form a major part of the reason I am so strongly in support of this important piece of legislation.
Let me begin by stating what I hope will be taken as obvious: Climate change is real and its impacts are serious. We need to do more to combat climate change and make sure that our communities adapt to mitigate the consequences of severe weather events, which are arriving with a greater sense of frequency.
In Nova Scotia, our shared home province, we know the importance of doing more to combat climate change. In particular, over the past 12 months or so, we have seen severe weather events that I could not possibly have imagined just a few years ago. The devastating impacts of hurricane Fiona are now well understood by members of this House. We have seen forest fires spread through our province like we have never experienced before. We have seen dangerous floods claim the lives of family members of the province we both call home.
Though we may face hurricanes, storm surges and other severe events, Atlantic Canada is not the only region of the country that has been impacted by the changing climate impacting our communities. We see heat waves in Quebec and Ontario. We see atmospheric rivers in British Colombia. We see wildfires that have displaced families and endangered critical infrastructure in nearly every region of this country.
It is important that I make these points and put them on the record to ensure that the perspective of government is well understood. Climate change is real, the impacts are serious and we need to do more to combat it.
In addition to making sure we address climate change fully with the different ideas we can come up with, we need to understand that not only is it the right thing to do from an environmental perspective, but it is in our self-interest because the cost of inaction is simply too great to ignore.
Members will have seen, as I have, the physical damage that can result from severe weather events. Over the course of the first 20 years or so of my life, it was typical to see insured losses in the range of $250 million to $450 million a year across this country. Within a few short years, that number could potentially reach $5 billion. The reality is that it is expensive not to take action on climate change, and we all pay the consequences.
It is not merely an issue of insured losses. Look at the contributions that governments need to make to deal with the fallout of severe weather events. Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps in excess of $1 billion, just in Nova Scotia as a result of the fallout of hurricane Fiona last year. Look at the consequences to the health and well-being of families of letting climate change run its course without intervention. Look at the impact we see when businesses are forced to shut down, as we sometimes lose power for weeks. Crops have been lost in this country that have cost local farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of these severe weather events. As I mentioned, they can endanger our critical infrastructure, upon which our communities rely for their well-being.
The good news, despite the very serious impacts of climate events, is that we can do something about them. Bill C-49 presents an opportunity. In fact, in my opinion, Nova Scotia has the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to creating job opportunities for people in the green economy. Members will have seen increasing global demand for clean energy products when it comes to powering our economies, when it comes to transportation globally and when it comes to construction and manufacturing. The entire world is hungry for climate-friendly solutions to solve problems for businesses.
I can point to a number of examples in our home provinces that are creating good-paying jobs for my neighbours today and for the residents of Nova Scotia. I can point to the carbon sequestration technology from a company like CarbonCure in Nova Scotia, which has been celebrated as one of the leading global companies when it comes to sequestration. I can look at Graphite Innovation and Technologies, which has invented a technology supported by research funding through Transport Canada. It has a more efficient hull paint for vessels that can make them 20% more efficient, not only reducing their fuel consumption but reducing the cost for people who use vessels to transport goods.
There are companies, such as the Trinity Group of Companies in my own community, that have embraced energy efficiency as a growth model for their community. When we shared news of a policy that allows homeowners to transition to heat pumps from home heating oil, it happened to be hosted at that particular location, and they were celebrating the fact that that day they had added their 100th employee. These are good-paying jobs in communities like mine.
There is no shortage of other examples. I look at Sheet Harbour, again in my constituency, and the work that RJ MacIsaac is doing to decommission and recycle the components of ships that would otherwise be run aground in some foreign country and left to rot, posing serious environmental consequences. Instead, RJ MacIsaac is creating good jobs in a small community like Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia.
I would like to draw members' attention as well to a billion-dollar opportunity for our province in a new industry. The industry is green hydrogen and the company is EverWind Fuels. It plans to create a green hydrogen option that will create export opportunities to develop clean energy in my home province. It could be powered by offshore wind, allowing it to offer one of the cleanest fuel sources, which is in extraordinarily high demand.
It is important that we look at the pathway to success for opportunities like this and not merely ascribe our strategy to being one of hope. It also has to involve a thoughtful approach to policy development. That is where Bill C-49 comes in. This bill is important because it would amend the accord acts, which gave life to the Atlantic accords, political arrangements reached a number of decades ago, to expand the scope of the regulatory framework to include offshore renewable energy and not simply offshore oil and gas. Members will have seen the significant economic production of the offshore oil and gas industry in Atlantic Canada over the course of our lifetimes, but we have not seen the same return when it comes to offshore renewable opportunities.
With the introduction of Bill C-49, we would be creating a regulatory framework that would give certainty to investors that says we welcome their business here in Atlantic Canada and want them to create opportunities for our community members to work in our economy in a way that is sustainable and renewable and will help us power the next generation of the economy in Atlantic Canada by providing clean electricity. As the cost of pollution continues to rise and continues to have an impact on our communities, we need to do more to generate energy from renewable sources, including offshore wind, for example.
There are very real proposals to build companies and advance projects that create good-paying jobs for Nova Scotians in the offshore renewable sector. However, without a regulatory framework, investors will not know whether projects will have a clear pathway to approval, and they will potentially flee our jurisdiction in search of a more friendly country or province where they can make an investment.
Over the next 15 or perhaps 20 years, we expect to see investments approaching $1 trillion globally in the offshore renewable sector. We need to put our hands up and say that we want the investments that are going to create good-paying jobs for our neighbours in provinces like Nova Scotia. It is rare that we have the opportunity to debate legislation that has a specific impact on just a few provinces, including my home province of Nova Scotia, that may not be national in scale. However, by working with provincial governments such as those in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, both of which support this bill, we are going to advance opportunities to create good-paying jobs for people in our communities.
I should point out that although there is some anxiety among workers who traditionally take part in the energy sector about the potential to transition to a clean economy, I want to communicate that this bill would create opportunity for those same people to continue to work in good-paying jobs. I look at opportunities for friends of mine whom I have known since I was seven years old. They are heavy equipment operators, who traditionally are involved in road building or projects for replacing municipal water and sewers. When I speak to them now, they are increasingly working on projects that deal with the prevention of coastal erosion or projects that will make our communities more sustainable, such as, as I mentioned, decommissioning ships that could otherwise be left to rot somewhere, posing great environmental concerns.
With the introduction of Bill C-49, we have an opportunity to say we are going to create regulatory certainty for the businesses that want to make investments. We have found out that we can monetize wind in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that wind is in plentiful supply in our part of the country. If we embrace the opportunity to tap into a new natural resource to create renewable energy for our economies, we can power the economy in a way that is good for our environment and good for the people who call your region and my region home.
We have only one planet. It is our duty to protect it, but by doing so we can create economic opportunities for a generation of workers who would otherwise not be able to have good-paying jobs so they can provide for their families. I am in support of this bill. I understand there is some division between the different parties in the House, but I would encourage all members, if they care about creating good-paying jobs in Nova Scotia and care about protecting our environment, to support this bill. It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, the former and now fired minister of immigration and failing Minister of Housing has finally found his new job, after he was defeated, as the minister of meteorology.
I really hope he can answer two questions. One, why has his government allowed tidal energy to fail in Nova Scotia? Is it because of their lack of direction? Two, could he please explain quotes from the member for Avalon? He said:
I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit. Everywhere I go people come up to me and say, “We're losing faith in the Liberal Party.”
I've had people tell me they can’t afford to buy groceries. They can’t afford to heat their homes and that’s hard to hear from especially seniors who live alone and tell me that they go around their house in the spring and winter time with a blanket wrapped around them because they can't afford home heating fuel and they can't afford to buy beef or chicken.
Can the minister explain that?
Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member resorts to personal attacks against me, I am going to remain focused on creating jobs for the people who live in our communities.
With respect, we have supported a number of projects that are pushing tidal energy in our province. As he starts to wave a kleenex because he is so upset about the answer I am providing to him, I will point out that while he claims to care about affordability, he is getting paid to go on fancy trips to the United Kingdom to enjoy luxury dinners that his constituents likely could not afford.
When it comes to supporting vulnerable people, we are going to continue to put measures in place that make life more affordable. I look at some of the legislation we are putting forward to help increase competition in the grocery industry. I look at measures I am personally advancing to make housing more affordable.
While the Conservatives throw insults at individuals across the way, we will put forward solutions that are designed to make life more affordable for my constituents and his.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that implementing an agreement for managing offshore renewable energy with Newfoundland and Labrador means that there will be a labour issue, perhaps even a labour shortage. Plus, where there are workers, there needs to be housing. How lucky we are to have the minister responsible for housing here with us.
I have a question for him. If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were willing to match the federal government's contribution and put in something along the lines of, say, another $900 million for the construction of social and affordable housing over the next five years, would the minister be rushing to meet with government officials to start building these units as quickly as possible?
Mr. Speaker, it is very important to implement measures that will lead to more housing in every province.
[English]
Thankfully, I was able to engage with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, both in my capacity as immigration minister and now in my capacity as the Minister of Housing, to help them reverse the population decline they were experiencing up until just last year. We helped them do that by advancing new immigration measures that were targeted to bring in the kinds of workers they need to power their economy. I have recently met with them, because we need to continue to advance measures that will help build more homes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We are working to advance investments in projects that will not only cover affordable housing but help build more housing, including in the city of St. John's. We are engaged right now with the city and the province to change the way the city builds homes to provide more affordable housing options for the workforce and for people who have long called the city home.
Mr. Speaker, the minister started off talking about something we should all know in this House, and that is that climate change is real. Last week in this House, somebody from the Maritimes, from South Shore—St. Margarets, said that wildfires across this country were manmade and that the hurricanes affecting his own region have happened for hundreds of years.
I am not from Newfoundland; I am from the Prairies. We saw some very similar issues with regard to transitioning workers and climate change, but what do we tell young people in our ridings? How do we respond to the fact that one of the major parties in this country refuses to admit that climate change is real in the House of Commons? On Friday, I was at a climate march in Montreal. I do not understand how I am supposed to speak to my constituents when we have a party that refuses to admit that climate change is real.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member and very much appreciate her question, because I think it is important.
I sometimes experience some frustration when I hear members of this House speak publicly to school children and say that carbon pollution is just food for plants. When I hear them dismiss once-in-a-century severe weather events, which now seem to happen on an annual basis, as things that have always happened, I find it deeply concerning.
Thankfully, I believe Canadians are smart and they understand that climate change is real. They will compare the plans of the various parties to address the crisis of climate change, and they will vote accordingly, as they have since 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to talk about Bill C-49 while standing on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.
I would like to start by acknowledging that indigenous leadership, knowledge and culture are critical to Canada's effort to fight climate change. For hundreds of generations, indigenous peoples have been the stewards of the land and waters, including Canada's oceans, as I was in my home of Unama'kik. It is clear that they continue to have a deep connection to the oceans that surround Canada. In my riding of Sydney—Victoria, the Mi'kmaq have a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the lakes and oceans that surround us.
In the spring of 2022, the federal government, in partnership with the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, announced their joint intention to expand the mandate of existing offshore boards to regulate offshore renewable energy projects. That fall and into this past winter, officials from NRCan invited indigenous groups in Atlantic Canada to engage in the amendments that we are discussing today. That invitation was accepted, and government representatives were able to share information with interested indigenous communities about the proposed amendments and listen to the initial thoughts on the evolving offshore energy industry. As this bill was tabled, NRCan reached out again to indigenous groups and proposed further meetings, so they could discuss these amendments in even greater detail.
I can assure the House that the government remains committed to learning from and sharing information with indigenous groups, so we can better understand how offshore wind turbines and the economy they support will support indigenous peoples, including those in Sydney—Victoria.
Engagement efforts continued in the two regional assessments for offshore wind development in Atlantic Canada that were launched in March. Before they began, an independent committee was assembled to lead each assessment and work alongside indigenous groups to seek nominations for committee members. These members are required to develop and carry out indigenous participation plans, and the perspectives and knowledge of indigenous peoples will also be sought through indigenous knowledge advisory groups that were created for each regional assessment.
This government is deeply grateful that indigenous peoples are playing key roles in the development and success of Canada's energy industries. As project leaders, company owners, skilled managers and workers, and holders of indigenous knowledge, they are critical to observing, interpreting and addressing climate change.
Indigenous energy leadership is continuing into the clean technologies space, and I can attest first-hand that EverWind is looking to build a hydrogen production facility in Point Tupper and planning to power it with three wind farms. It is partnering with the Membertou Mi'kmaq community to jointly develop and operate two proposed farms: the 20-turbine Kmtnuk project and the 15-turbine Bear Lake project. That is an example of indigenous leadership in energy sectors to deliver clean, reliable and affordable power to our grids. These projects will create good, sustainable jobs and secure revenue for nations in the years ahead. These opportunities do not end at our shores; they extend well beyond them.
With global investments in offshore wind set to be worth $1 trillion, this bill is key to ensuring that this success continues. It will bring sustainable jobs and unlock unprecedented economic opportunity for indigenous peoples in my home of Sydney—Victoria and across the country. This is one reason that it is incredibly discouraging to hear the Conservative Party oppose this bill, attempting to block indigenous communities in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador from benefiting from new renewable energy projects.
Some members of the House have expressed concern that offshore energy regulators in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will not carry out sufficient consultation with the indigenous groups potentially affected by offshore renewable energy projects. However, to the contrary, these boards are extremely capable of carrying out indigenous consultation and accommodation obligations on behalf of the government, and they have done so for many years.
The amendments proposed through this bill will simply clarify what is already established by case law and current practice: that both the Government of Canada and provincial governments can rely on the offshore regulators, the two boards, to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate. The government remains ultimately responsible for the quality of the consultations and accommodations. The provinces understand this, and so do we.
By confirming this accords act, we reaffirm our commitments to both joint management Canada's offshore with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and ongoing reconciliation with indigenous people.
To further underscore this point, these amendments include the authority for the offshore energy regulators to establish a participant funding program for any matter within their jurisdiction. This authority would ensure that they can facilitate engagement and consultation with indigenous groups and are able to carry out meaningful relationship-building with indigenous groups whose rights may be adversely affected by offshore energy activities.
Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the quality and the credibility of the efforts of the offshore energy regulators and contribute to open, balanced decision-making. It is also consistent with the authorities currently in place for other regulators, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canada Energy Regulator and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
With Bill C-49, both offshore energy boards will have enough resources to undertake indigenous consultation, stakeholder engagement and thorough regulatory reviews of proposed projects. As we advance this legislation, I can assure the members of the House that, going forward, there will continue to be opportunities where indigenous groups are able to provide their valuable feedback on offshore wind.
First, there are two regional assessments that I have previously mentioned, and indigenous people will be included in any calls for information regarding wind energy areas of interest or actual calls for bids. This will allow indigenous groups to participate and lead in the development of good, renewable energy projects.
We know the government has a duty to consult with indigenous people on actions that could impact indigenous or treaty rights. We propose that, with these amendments, the government will be able to rely on Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore energy regulators to meaningfully consult with indigenous groups on the government's behalf and make necessary assessments on the Crown's behalf to mitigate adverse impacts on indigenous and treaty rights. This does not mean that the Crown can abdicate its responsibility to fulfill its duty to consult and accommodate, as some have suggested it does. We actually think that it allows for a more robust process. The Crown will ensure that this duty is met.
I would like to conclude by highlighting the benefits that Bill C-49 will bring to the communities across Nova Scotia and, specifically, Cape Breton. The economic boom in Sydney—Victoria did not happen by chance. It happened because of bold investments and actions on the part of our government. Bill C-49 is another step in that direction.
Amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia accord would expand the mandate of the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore board to regulate offshore renewable energy projects, including tidal, in the existing Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord area. As a result, the benefit for all communities in Cape Breton would be vast. Not only would it continue to contribute to our ongoing economic boom through job creation, but it would also bring our province and country another step closer to meeting our emissions reduction targets.
All communities stand to benefit from the passage of Bill C-49. It would represent a vital step in the future of Nova Scotia offshore wind and offshore renewable energy technologies, which have the potential to electrify and decarbonize Canada's economy, creating substantial jobs and contributing to Canada's emerging clean hydro sector. Sydney—Victoria stands to benefit, and so does the rest of Nova Scotia.
It is deeply important that this bill pass swiftly, so indigenous communities such as those in my riding can benefit from the immense economic opportunity and new well-paying, sustainable jobs that will come with the offshore renewable industry. That is why we continue to make indigenous knowledge, and the commitment to protect the environment, an essential part of expanding our offshore energy industry. We continue to encourage our Conservative colleagues to do the same by agreeing to stop their opposition of the creation of new indigenous economic opportunities and by supporting this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Sydney—Victoria talk at great length on the consultation with indigenous peoples on Bill C-49, which is very important. Not long ago, I spoke with one of his fellow Nova Scotian colleagues, who reiterated the same, so I asked him about consultation with non-indigenous fishermen. His response to me was, “Who cares about them? Why are you looking for trouble?”
Does the member for Sydney—Victoria agree with his fellow Nova Scotian Liberal colleague that consulting with non-indigenous fishermen is asking for trouble?
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our direction of making sure that we are looking at clean energy and clean wind energy, as well as our commitment to the environment, is going to help all fishermen in the Atlantic. We heard loud and clear from the United Nations, when I was out there at the conference in the spring, that the stocks and all the fisheries are jeopardized by climate change.
Unless we have a plan for the environment and for climate change, we do not have a plan for the fishermen who rely on those industries. It is important for us to understand that all benefit from our shift to the green and clean future, especially the fishermen of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, where I am.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on his speech. His commitment to the environment is beyond any doubt.
As for Bill C-49, I have many questions.
As I read this bill, it struck me as a great way to conceal malicious intentions around oil and gas development.
Wind energy is great. Saying that we are going to produce green hydrogen is great. That is the positive side of the bill. However, is it not true that the bill sugar-coats a bitter pill?
The bill appears to promote wind energy, but is it not true that its real intention is to allow twice as much offshore oil and gas production and development down the road, as announced soon after this bill was introduced?
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the double-talk around this bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am always concerned about where we are heading in this country and in our society, but I know we have to take those first steps in the right direction. We have listened to indigenous knowledge from indigenous elders and indigenous leaders; they have told us that we need to do more for our environment and that we need to look out for future generations. This is why I believe that the heart of this bill is looking at renewable energies, the power of hydrogen energy and what we can do to make sure we have a sustainable future for our children. While we know there are still fossil fuels that we burn and there are still cars out there being driven, we have to step in that direction, so that is what I remain committed to doing.
Mr. Speaker, it was a tough summer for Halifax and Nova Scotia in general. I would like the member to reflect upon his government's policy for cell service. Back in 2018, there was a failure here in Ottawa on cell service related to a tornado and other weather conditions. This summer, we saw continual failures to provide accurate and accessible cell service by the large conglomerates. The member's government has been lax on rolling this out. At the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, in 2018, we pulled them in for hearings, and most recently, the minister had them come forth when Rogers had an outage. However, we still do not have adequate and reliable service, which has been very costly for the citizens of Nova Scotia. What is the government going to do next?
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. Cell coverage and cell service is not only an important luxury to have but also an essential service for reporting, such as when we have hurricanes, fires or floods. Cell service and those alerts are very important. We need to do what we are doing with the grocery stores: We are calling the grocery store CEOs and saying that we need them to do more. We need the telecom companies to do more, and I think all parties and the government can agree that we need to go to these telecom companies and say that this is an essential service for our ridings and community members and that we need them to do more.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on Bill C-48, an act that would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
At the end of the day, this is about renewable projects that will start to move forward. Coming from my neck of the woods in Windsor, Ontario, with the auto industry, we have seen Canada fall from number two in assembly in the world—
Please make sure that we are speaking to Bill C-49.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague is listening to me, so that is good. It is Bill C-49. I appreciate the correction. We would not want that to stand in the record here.
I want to talk about the connection to my community and renewables and also what is taking place with this bill in Atlantic Canada.
I asked my previous question about 911 calls that were dropped because we saw the east coast suffer significantly from the climate change that we are witnessing across the globe and across Canada, everything from wildfires to rain and other types of flooding events.
Even in my region, there are consequences with the Great Lakes, in southern Ontario. I think it is important, when we do public policy, that we start to remediate and look at some of the consequences of poor actions by Conservatives and Liberals in the past when it comes to the telco industry and communications, which are paramount in this.
I have spoken many times in this chamber about the fact that we are in our current problem with regard to cellphone and, especially, rural service, because we chose certain actions.
This government and the previous government set up an auction process for our spectrums. They gobbled up around $23 billion from the spectrum auctions since 2000. They are then making Canadians pay some of the highest prices because we do not have a telephone bill of rights.
Where did that money go? Successive governments, from Chrétien to Martin to Harper and now to our current administration, have raked all that cash in. At the same time, we have had no regulation on prices and accountability.
The accountability part is important because, in 2018, we witnessed a terrible situation here in Ottawa, with regard to tornadoes. We had special hearings about that, because 911 was out for a period of time or was reduced in service and quality and so forth. Even this past summer, the same thing just took place again in the Halifax region.
Shame on us for not forcing the telcos to provide better, reliable service. It is interesting, because the minister, in the Rogers thing, picked up the phone and called Rogers. He said that when he speaks, Rogers is going to actually listen and do something. It sounds like the grocery store plan that he has right now with the CEOs.
We know it did not work because Rogers recently sued the Competition Bureau and the tribunal process. It is getting Canadian taxpayers' money for the Competition Bureau fighting for Canadians against the acquisition of Shaw.
We have a system in place that has run amok. Under climate change, the consequences for communication are real, as we move quickly away from land lines, especially with the cost of operations. People cannot afford cellphone plans like family plans and a land line any more. Then other services are not available any longer.
It is a public interest aspect that is critical to our public policy, because the spectrum auction and the way that we roll out and have these companies abuse Canadians can all be taken in-house here.
We have seen other countries do that, but we will not do it because they lobby so hard and they basically have a hands-off policy. We do not have a telco bill of rights, which the NDP has been fighting for. We do not use a spectrum auction to make sure that we have lower prices, better access and higher accountability.
We have not done any of those things. I am worried that, with this bill here, we still have public policy with this void and the gap in the difference, which we could actually improve as transition takes place with climate change.
One of the things that has taken place in my region is with the auto sector. I was mentioning the transition in the auto sector. In my region, we were number two in the world in assembly and we have dropped to eighth. We have had to fight back most recently. Without a national auto policy, we have been slow off the mark for transitioning to a greener, cleaner auto industry.
We did our first press conference, with Joe Comartin and David Suzuki, in Windsor, on a green auto strategy back in 2006. That is also when I showed the film Who Killed the Electric Car?. That was an original GM vehicle; it was a clean, green machine that they took off the market.
We are finally seeing some good transitions. Yesterday, we had the Parliamentary Budget Officer in front of industry committee, and I was asking questions. We have recent announcements on Volkswagen and Stellantis, which add up to about $28 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned that these returns would not be as quick as the government was saying.
It was really good to get at that during the hearing. We realized, through the testimony, that it was still a better deal than the Trans Mountain pipeline. He had to look at the two situations, as requested. The Trans Mountain pipeline is already up to $31 billion, has fewer jobs connected to it and has greater environmental degradation related to it.
Meanwhile, on the Volkswagen and Stellantis deal, the money is only guaranteed, for the most part, if there is battery production. We have to meet it because our free-market American friends have brought in the Inflation Reduction Act. They are massively subsidizing their capital investments in the auto industry and other factors. In fact, they are just ramping it up.
I was at the national state legislatures meeting this past summer. The year coming up and another year after that will have the Democrats and Republicans spending more money than ever before, and doing it through corporate subsidization. That is allowed because of our situation regarding a trade agreement.
All we did was match what the U.S. did for Stellantis and Volkswagen, and thank goodness. This is a good shout-out for our UNIFOR workers who have been at the forefront of the transition for the economy for auto from day one. Dave Cassidy, John D'Agnolo and others in my region have been at the forefront making sure that we actually have a green transition economy and we get some of the new plants.
That is important because those vehicles are shipped primarily within Canada and the United States, and other parts of the world, and we will start being able to compete. The point is that, at least with that transition, we are going to see some improvements in the job guarantee components and the subsidy. Some of it goes to capital operations, but the vast majority goes to production.
We did not want to put him on the spot by asking which investment he would choose, between this and Trans Mountain, but it is just basically out the door all the time. There are no qualifications on any of that whatsoever. It was an interesting conversation yesterday and it fits well with what we are trying to do with climate change and reducing emissions on vehicles.
The auto industry has been one of the more centralized themes, in its producing and creating, as one of the toughest things that we have to change but it also offers some potential solutions. If we look at some of the products that are coming out now from the auto industry with this transition to batteries and so forth, it is also becoming generators and capacities within people's homes. We have other subsequent issues that we can apply our vehicles to in our houses to reduce emissions. There is a new future with that coming forward.
That applies to this act because it will help offset other areas of climate change. If we look at Newfoundland and Labrador, and Halifax, and we look at those offshore capabilities, those are also some of the things that were done in my region regarding windmills and wind turbines. They are not perfect by any means, but they are also part of the solution to advance different types of energy.
Sadly, the McGuinty government at that time and then the Wynne government brought in bad policy that still lingers to this day. That is why we will have to be looking to make sure that Bill C-49 would be a solid bill at the end of the day, and have subsequent follow-through. They brought in some private sector proponents and it turned into a fundraiser when it came to the issue of the Green Energy Act that was passed in Ontario.
The important aspect of this is that, when we see these projects and the subsidies going forward to them, and the policies that are happening, people feel confident in them. That is what I am hoping will come from this bill. I hope when the elements become real and substantial, people will support them.
I noticed a significant difference in my community in the auto sector. We have one of the most successful manufacturing plants from the Second World War building the Chrysler minivan. It was not Stellantis, but it was Chrysler.
We fought for years in this House for a basic auto policy that would be transparent, and that is what is going to be necessary for new projects in Bill C-49.
I was part of the discussion yesterday when we had the Parliamentary Budget Officer in place. I noted that we had to rescue Chrysler in the past, and that led to a plant that still exists today and the government made money on it, as it was done right. Most recently, we have had some auto investment for helping General Motors and others. Had the Conservatives not cashed in the shares they got from General Motors, we would have made more money on that investment, but they cashed them out early for ideological reasons and we did not get the return we should have.
I stood here in this chamber when Jim Flaherty said that we cannot pick winners or losers and could not do anything about it. Thank goodness he switched his position. I am eternally grateful for that. He was a hard worker, somebody one could approach, and he did a lot of work for Canada. He switched his position on that, which is how we rescued General Motors at that time, despite the objections of many people and parties. It was a forethought that this could open up the new investment that we are getting now not only in the Oshawa area, but in Ingersoll and other places where we see the auto return.
In fact, it is coming back to Quebec. The Sainte-Thérèse plant closed a long time ago, which was a shame because our auto investment in our supply chain was critical along the lines. It was important to rescue that plant, but at that time there was no support from the government and it was unfortunately lost, but that is one of the returns we are seeing now. They are involved in new battery manufacturing, which is critical, because Ontario and Quebec manufacturing is very solid.
When projects come forward, in this bill I am hoping there is also going to be the potential for other provinces to tap into some of the manufacturing, supply and servicing that is going to be required for some of the new investments for clean energy. We have seen that in a number of years in our region, as parts of the manufacturing took place for the wind turbines in Windsor and Essex County, and in other places it had to be shipped in. Some of it was shipped in from overseas, but there was a lot domestically produced, so we have an advantage hopefully to prepare and to be the manufacturers of the materials, goods, services and servicing.
As a side topic to some of this, the planning has to be done because we are looking at energy. I am a long-time critic of the deep repository for nuclear waste that is being proposed in the Bruce Peninsula area. It wants to be one of the first places ever in the world to do this, bury nuclear waste next to some of the largest freshwater reserves in the world. Only a couple of these facilities have been built, which have caught on fire or leaked. It wants to build and bury that for over 100 million years. That is a legacy of nuclear waste that we have to factor in, so there is a decision pending on that. The government and other members have been quiet on this. I have not because I have been there and have seen what is happening. The community is being greased by the nuclear industry with respect to extra resources and a number of things. There is lobbying going on, and that is fine, but it has to be based on reasonable expectations. Ironically, the original proposal was turned down by the Saugeen First Nation, so it moved a mile off the site and proposed a new one there.
The point I am making is there is a legacy cost involved in all of this, and servicing costs, and we have to build those in. That is why this opportunity in Bill C-49 is important for jobs and the economy. It is important that we try and get in front of some of the domestic work we can do.
The climate change aspect is critical in this; to fight back against these things is going to take large and small projects. It is important that we feel momentum and that we can control some of these measures and have input. When people turn on the TV and see the mess that is taking place not only in Canada, but other places in the world, I get a lot of young people asking what we can do. There are a lot of things we can do regarding our own behaviour, our country's behaviour internationally, and how we respond to this. I have a private member's bill on the Ojibway national urban park to do that.
It would actually create a green space that would stop flooding and soak up the negative resources with regard to the water in the spillage that can take place into industrial areas and residential areas. It would also have an effect for 200 of Canada's 500 endangered species.
When we look at these projects that are taking place and go forward with Bill C-49, I am hoping they also get community benefits. I want to talk about community benefits a little because it does not have them in now, which is why local members from that area should be fighting tooth and nail for this addition. If the bill concludes with some of those elements later on, it would provide control and supports for the community.
My first public meeting to get a new border crossing in Windsor was in 1998. We went for a long period of time. We fought off an American billionaire who wanted to twin the Ambassador Bridge and ram it right through the west end of the city, cutting us off. We fought off OMERS, one of the largest pension funds, which wanted to put a truck route right through south Windsor, destroying the environment with a truck route.
We finally got a compromise for a new bridge. Part of the new bridge project includes community benefits on both the Canadian and American sides. Those benefits allow the community to opt in to these larger projects. It is a $5-billion project. All we could get was $10 million on both sides, but at least it was a start. It was historic, the first time it was done. However, the $10 million goes into a community fund from which other projects then emerge. There is conservation money and money for homes with regard to greening, offsetting the damage of the construction that is taking place. The inclusion of projects would build a legacy. All of those things make people feel better and stronger about the massive investment they get with regard to an energy project or something else.
I am hoping that there is going to be an opportunity for community benefits to be put into this bill to ensure people there get to see what we have seen so strongly in our area. Again, the community benefits process is everything from not only the project getting done but also constant community consultation about what those things would be, and control. That is critical when it comes to having some empowerment, so the people feel stronger about the investments, and also the value when they look out and see the windmills and some of the changes that physically take place. That was a concern we had with regard to our project.
What also has to happen, and the reason I mentioned the nuclear component and the legacy costs, is that we still have to look at what we do with the end of the life cycle of a windmill and wind turbine. We did have some testimony at the industry committee recently about this. I asked about those things. There is no real plan for any of that right now. We do not want to have to basically rip things down and ship them hundreds of miles away on large transportation platforms that would create more greenhouse gas emissions, just to be recycled. We have to think about a long-term plan, because as of now, Windsor-Essex County and Chatham-Kent have a scattering of windmills across them, creating green energy. Eventually, the windmills' lifespan is going to cease and they will need either refurbishment, replacement or recycling.
These are important elements that we should be building into the cost of things. It is kind of the argument the NDP has been making for years on manufacturing's extended producer liability. That is critical because with public funds involved, it is not just the cost of the moment. This is what federal governments have been really particularly abusive of in the past: getting in on the capital of something at the very beginning and then walking away from the operational legacy. We have seen this in the housing industry. There are so many market rental units right now that need fixing up.
I want to say that I am appreciative of the opportunity to speak to this bill, because my region has a connection through the work that has been done. I want to conclude by again saying that we have to take seriously the public infrastructure that we have. Why I started with telco on this is because climate change is going to require us to be quicker and more responsive. No longer should governments be letting the three giants run their way with the rest of Canada.
Privilege
Alleged Misleading Response to Order Paper Question
[Privilege]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order to briefly provide additional information on the question of privilege I raised yesterday.
I would like to point out that the government failed to disclose over $200,000 in costs incurred for the Prime Minister's ski trip to Montana, in Order Paper question responses, not once but at least twice. In the government's response to Question No. 1417, which was filed by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable and signed off by the then parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and the current Speaker of the House, part (f) of the question clearly asks, “are there any costs incurred or expected to be incurred by the government related to the trip that are not included in the response to (a) and, if so, what are those costs or expected costs, broken down by item and type of expense?”
The government was clearly aware of the extra $200,000 in costs that would be incurred, yet it failed to provide that information in the response.
In a second Order Paper answer, this time to Question No. 1582, which was also filed by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the government was given a second chance to provide the real cost of the Prime Minister's trip. However, again, it failed to do so.
This is a pattern. I ask that it be considered that the government misled the House in both Order Paper questions answered, and that both instances be considered.
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-49 as an opportunity where we have consensus for a very important region of the nation. Our regions look for economic development and prosperity. I look at the accord, what we are debating today, as something that has virtually universal support. We want to see this legislation pass. We have seen numerous members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus actually speak to the legislation and its importance.
Given the wide spectrum of support for the legislation, is the member at all surprised that the Conservatives seem to want to sit on the legislation or are not being outspoken in favour of seeing the legislation in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Conservatives on that. However, I will say that when we have an opportunity, we have to seize it, with this type of support coming from the provinces. Time is of the essence on this. Climate change is not going to wait for parliamentary procedure. Climate change is not going to wait for us and for the government to get its act together in regard to how it deals with telcos and making sure that they provide proper 911 service for people during emergencies. That is why I would like to seize upon the added value that we can get in this bill, whether that would be the community benefits I mentioned or whether that would be in being more specific in demanding that the telcos be more accountable for their actions, because people's lives are at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some Nova Scotians who might be affected by Bill C-49, even though the member for Windsor West really did not.
My friend and former physician colleague Beau Blois and his family have been named provincial Woodland Owner of the Year. They have a round barn. They have Angus beef, and they are renowned in the region for what they do. I thank Beau and Laura for what they do.
Next, I would like to highlight Jeremy Dobson and Justin McKay, who have created the first significant Afghanistan memorial in my riding.
Finally, I offer heartfelt condolences to my assistant Holly Miller, whose father, sadly, has passed. Her father, Gary, would have been significantly affected by Bill C-49.
I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight those folks.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure they are really good people, and it is nice that we know their names, but we never heard anything about the effect on them. I would say that the most important issue to the member is to really know and pronounce in Parliament the effect on them, because that is where we want amelioration for those who are affected. That is critical. When there is change taking place, there could be some negative offsets for people's lives and businesses, and so forth. They should be respected for that and compensated.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, here is my take on Bill C-49. Climate change is like watching a bathtub that is about to overflow. Relying on offshore wind power would be like using a spoon to try to empty the bathtub. Meanwhile, this bill keeps the tap running full blast. That is what this government is doing, because it is going to double oil production off the coast of Newfoundland.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on Bill C‑49. Aside from the local benefits and spinoffs he mentioned, is this a bill that will really help tackle climate change at last?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think it will, because now we have support for alternative energy that we did not have in the past, which needs to be brought forth. That is part of how to actually move forward on these initiatives. It is a good, legitimate concern; there is no doubt. However, we need to actually move forward where there is consensus on clean energy.
For my region, there are still very much some big concerns that were expressed with regard to wind, because of the effects on soil and potential issues underneath. These are all things that need to be kept in mind.
What I have been saying in the past is that there are other expenses and that we need to make sure we plan for the legacy costs. That is where the member really needs to have the focus in terms of the comments being strong, but it also needs to be on understanding that there is a cost for all of these things in the forefront that needs to be countered as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a specific quote to follow up with the question. This is from the Conservative natural resources critic on CBC, on September 21, 2023. She referred to the legislation “as another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.”
This is legislation that is supported by Atlantic provinces. There is a consensus. I wish the Conservative Party would listen to what the people in the region are saying, along with the members of Parliament who are reflecting the desire to see this legislation pass. Would the member not agree that the Conservative Party needs to stand up for that region and get behind this important piece of legislation?
Mr. Speaker, I cannot really comment on the Conservatives and what their intentions are, but I can tell members that, in my experience, when we actually have the provinces united behind something in their region, we have to act on it quickly because that consensus may not stay. Even greening the auto energy sector was very difficult in many respects because people thought they were going to lose their jobs and they were going to be transitioned out altogether.
We have seen remarkable compromise and work by the union movement to make sure they understand people want jobs, not just now but also in the future. They are willing to go through that transition and that process, at risk to themselves and their families, but they know also that the alternative is even worse because of the consequences of climate change. As such, it is critical that we move on this right now, respect the provincial jurisdictions that are there and work with the co-operative environment we have. That is going to take compromise on all parts.
I will conclude with this: Once again, time is of the essence, because either the federal government or provincial governments could fall at some point, and that consensus would disappear. Then, we would lose out on the opportunity, and other people and other places would make decisions for us.
Mr. Speaker, since our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North is into reading into the record quotes from members of Parliament, I would like to read into the record a quote from a Liberal MP. After eight years of the Prime Minister, a Liberal MP is finally admitting the harm that has been caused by his Prime Minister's punishing policies. He said this just last night:
I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them [our constituents] a fair bit. Everywhere I go people come up to me and say, “You know, we are losing faith in the Liberal Party”. I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries. They can't afford to heat their homes and that's hard to hear.
I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments about the telcoms, but the carbon tax is making life more unaffordable for Canadians. What does he have to say about that and his party's—
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Claude Pensa
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour the life of Londoner Claude Pensa, who sadly passed away recently at the age of 93. The proud son of Italian immigrants, he never forgot his roots, and his family was incredibly proud of him as a result. They are also proud of him for practising the law for 57 years, namely at the firm he co-founded, Harrison Pensa.
Widely respected for his skills as a litigator, he was a recipient of the Law Society Medal for his contributions to the field. He also found ways to mentor young lawyers, shaping not only their careers for the better but also their lives. He was especially admired for his compassion. He and his wife, Elaine, formed Lawyers Feed the Hungry in 2003. Since that time, $500,000 has been raised by that campaign in support of local hunger relief programs.
He was an extraordinary person. He touched everyone's lives for the positive. He is not forgotten in London, nor will he ever be. I had the opportunity to know him a little. I will not forget the advice he gave me just before I was elected in 2015 for the first time.
I thank Claude so much. We will miss him.
George Reed
Mr. Speaker, this week Rider nation lost one of its all-time greats. George Reed, number 34 for the Saskatchewan Roughriders, passed away just one day shy of his 84th birthday.
George played all 13 seasons of his CFL career for the green and white, from 1963 to 1975. During this time, his on-field performance was nothing short of incredible. He was the regular season MVP in 1965 and the Grey Cup MVP in 1966. His 134 rushing touchdowns are a CFL record that still stands to this day.
After retiring from football, George continued to make Saskatchewan his home, devoting himself to charitable causes such as the Special Olympics. For his charitable work and for his football career, George was awarded the Order of Canada.
When the Saskatchewan Roughriders pay tribute to George at tomorrow's game in Regina, I am sure he will be looking down on us, smiling and cheering on the green and white.
Human Rights in Iran
Mr. Speaker, today marks a profound moment for human rights, women's rights and Iranian peoples' freedom. With the backdrop of a 16-year-old girl, Armita Geravand, being in a coma for the past two days, early this morning we heard the distinguished 2023 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Narges Mohammadi, an Iranian human rights activist, for her dedication to fighting for human rights and women's rights over the past three decades.
Narges Mohammadi, who is currently in prison, has been campaigning against systemic discrimination and oppression of women in Iran and fighting for freedom and democracy for over three decades. Her brave fight has come with tremendous personal costs. She has been arrested 13 times, convicted five times and cumulatively sentenced to more than 30 years in prison.
As she is held captive, this recognition provides an enduring testament to her tireless, civic and peaceful work. Today, yet again, we have witnessed the fuelling of the flame of the “woman, life, freedom” movement, and this torch now igniting the hearts and spirits of brave women across the world.
In Narges' own words:
[Member spoke in Farsi and provided the following translation:]
“Victory is not easy, but it's certain.”
[English]
Recognition of Inspirational Inuit
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank three Inuit for inspiring my speech.
Bernadette Miqqusaaq Dean is an artist. I met her before she pursued her artistic talents, and I have always admired her for her strength. Annie Curley blends her comedic sense of humour with teachings she learned as an Inuk and with bird sounds that she imitates in her crafts. Ashton Kablutsiaq is my son's cousin. I recently discovered his talent for drawing complicated art pieces that showcase his pride as an Inuk.
They shared with me the shifts they are helping to create in becoming productive adults wanting to help each other. That shift must be from always talking about intergenerational trauma to talking about intergenerational love. I encourage all indigenous peoples to let go of the anger and pain they hold on to. We must pass on intergenerational love to our children and grandchildren. Let us speak up and show that we are still here.
MT Space
Mr. Speaker, almost 20 years ago, shortly after immigrating from Lebanon, Majdi Bou-Matar founded MT Space, an incredible arts organization in the Waterloo region that centres marginalized and racialized artists and stories in our community.
His goal at the time was to establish an international theatre festival within 10 years. Sadly, Majdi passed away suddenly last June. Our community continues to grieve his loss, but MT Space has shifted what we consider mainstream theatre in our community, and the festival Majdi envisioned years ago continues to grow.
This year marked MT Space's full return to live and in-person theatre with IMPACT 23. Over the course of six days, it pretty much took over downtown Kitchener, bringing together artists from eight different countries to stage 20 productions indoors and outdoors.
I thank Pam and the entire MT Space team and board for their leadership, for challenging our preconceptions of theatre and for their tireless work creating space for voices that need to be heard.
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight an important organization.
Pink in the City has been supporting breast cancer awareness for over 17 years. On October 27, Pink in the City will be hosting its annual magic of hope gala in my riding of Vimy. To date, it has raised over $2 million for cancer research, state-of-the-art medical equipment and programs that promote wellness and research for metastatic breast cancer.
[Translation]
Breast cancer can affect us all, our mothers, our sisters and our daughters.
In Canada, one in eight women is at risk of developing breast cancer in her lifetime. We know that the key to treatment is early detection.
[English]
It is important that we support those around us and do everything we can to prevent it. I encourage all members to do whatever they can to support the fight against breast cancer this month and year-round.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, Canadians and victims' families want answers. They want accountability and they want transparency from the Liberal government. For five months, the Liberals have done everything in their power to prevent the public safety committee from investigating the transfer of notorious killer Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison. Canadians deserve to know why this was allowed to happen. Victims' families deserve to know why they were only consulted after this transfer took place. All of us need to know why the Liberal government sat on that information for months until it was already too late to take action.
After eight years under these Liberals, the rights and privileges of mass killers has taken priority over the rights of victims and their families to receive basic care and consideration. Conservatives will not let the Liberals sweep this scandal under the rug. We are going to stand up for victims and their families and make sure they get the answers they deserve.
Truth and Reconciliation
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I was honoured to represent the constituents of Windsor—Tecumseh at the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation on Parliament Hill. As Chief Mary Duckworth of Caldwell first nation says, reconciliation is not just a word. It must be an action.
This past summer, Caldwell first nation broke ground on their first new housing development, supported by a $10-million investment from our federal housing initiative. Thanks to the leadership of Chief Duckworth, Chief Miskokomon of Walpole Island first nation, and the incredible staff at Parks Canada, Ojibway national urban park will soon become the first national park in Ontario to be officially co-managed by first nations.
Truth and reconciliation is a difficult journey, but it is the right one, and it is one we must walk together. There is more work ahead, but I am proud our community is walking the path of reconciliation and working in partnership and respect with indigenous peoples to preserve and protect our natural habitat forever.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, October 1 was National Seniors Day. Last Friday, I met with three members of the National Pensioners Federation to hear about their concerns and hopes for the rights and well-being of aging people in this country.
According to Statistics Canada, the number of Canadians age 85 and older could triple to almost 2.5 million people over the next 25 years. Many of these citizens are in my province of British Columbia, where individuals 65 and older make up nearly 20% of the population. Challenges such as the pandemic, accountability of caretakers and the effects of climate change on human health are issues of concern for this demographic and those who care for them. The National Pensioners Federation is currently working toward a draft motion for the United Nations regarding the proposed convention on the rights of older persons, which would emphasize the critical importance of these issues.
As we move into new chapters for Canada, let us honour the rights of older persons and work hard to ensure people possess the tools and care to navigate aging with security and dignity.
[Translation]
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the government still has no solution for inflation. Worse yet, it wants to saddle Canadians with a second carbon tax.
The government keeps saying that the carbon tax will not affect Quebec, but that is not true. The first carbon tax affects Quebeckers indirectly and the second tax affects them directly.
Quebec is not self-sufficient. We rely on a wide range of goods from across the country. When the carbon tax is applied to those provinces, the cost of the goods goes up. If the government taxes farmers, processors and transporters, then obviously the goods become more expensive.
Food banks in my riding are struggling to meet demand. The kicker is that the Bloc Québécois is supporting these measures that are making matters worse.
It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. It has proven that by voting in favour of the carbon tax twice now, once on June 5 and again on Wednesday. Even more alarming, the Bloc wants to radically increase the tax, leaving Canadians even worse off.
Enough is enough. It is time for the common-sense Conservatives to fix what the Bloc-Liberal coalition has broken.
Thanksgiving
Mr. Speaker, for many Canadians, Thanksgiving long weekend marks the beginning of fall. Many will spend the weekend raking leaves, harvesting what they planted this summer and, hopefully, eating a delicious meal surrounded by family and friends.
[English]
We all recognize that this has not been an easy year for Canadians. Many are struggling with the high cost of living. That is why I am so thankful to live in and represent a community whose members take care of one another, look out for their neighbours and are always there to lend a hand when someone needs it. Today, I give thanks for the incredible generosity of the citizens of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.
[Translation]
I want to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who play an important role in my life, including each of my dear colleagues here in the House. I wish all of my constituents in Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne a happy Thanksgiving.
[English]
I wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving.
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, for too many, Thanksgiving is a painful reminder of the difficult times they are facing after eight years under this NDP-Liberal government.
Let us take a trip around the Thanksgiving table: potatoes are up 77%; carrots are up 74% percent; cabbage is up 70%; turkey is up 67%. A family of four will pay over $16,000 for groceries this year, all thanks to the heartless carbon taxes that are increasing inflation.
When we tax the farmers who grow the food, and tax the trucker who ships the food, then tax everyone who buys the food, well, as a result, we end up with Canada being less competitive and less prosperous than it was eight years ago.
Canadians know that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost, but it does not have to be this way. This weekend, I am giving thanks for being a part of our common sense Conservative team. When we win the responsibility of serving Canadians, we will axe the carbon taxes to bring down the cost of gas, groceries, and home heating.
I wish members a happy Thanksgiving. We will bring it home.
Human Rights in Iran
Mr. Speaker, Iran’s terrorist regime has done it again. Another young woman, this time a 16-year-old girl, was beaten before entering Iran's subway system by Iran’s so-called morality police.
Armita Geravand, a young Kurdish women from Kermanshah in Rojhelat, was beaten for not wearing a hijab and now lies in a coma in intensive care. Her story is eerily similar to the brutal beating of Zhina Mahsa Amini, who died at the hands of the same morality police just over a year ago.
Today marks a day when jailed Iranian activist Narges Mohammadi has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mohammadi is a prominent activist and vice-president of the Defenders of Human Rights Center. She remains jailed by the regime, but this award serves as a slap in the face of Khamenei and the regime that he leads, which Narges continues to bravely fight.
The Liberal government has to do more. Words are not enough. The government needs to take action and delegitimize the Iranian regime with no more international forums and no more sporting events. It needs to list the IRGC as a terror group.
Jin. Jiyan. Azadi. Zan. Zendegi. Azadi.
Truth and Reconciliation
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I attended an event on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation at the Durham Community Health Centre. At that event, a residential school survivor shared his experience and healing journey.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Bernard Nelson, a residential school survivor from the Eabametoong First Nation north of Thunder Bay. He dug deep into his painful past and told his story for over an hour. I have to say that I was horrified to hear a first-hand account of the abuse that this man had suffered having been separated from his mother at a very young age, being physically, sexually and psychologically abused at the residential school, and regularly beaten and taught to feel like he did not belong and was worthless.
As this courageous man opened up and told his story from his early years through to an adulthood filled with substance use, justice system involvement and the corresponding impacts on his family and children, he painted a portrait of the legacy of residential schools in Canada.
I just want to say from the bottom of my heart how grateful I was to Bernard Nelson for speaking his truth and for the opportunity to hear his story.
Support for the Canadian Armed Forces
Mr. Speaker, in the face of increased global conflict and natural disasters, it is now more important than ever to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the support they need to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to do on our behalf every day.
With this Liberal government now talking austerity and cuts, we need to make sure that serving members, their families and DND employees do not pay the price of pursuing cutbacks instead of fair taxes. Under the guise of updating Canada's military housing support, the government has already announced it will be taking $30 million out of the pockets of military families. This cut will hit particularly hard in communities like mine where rental prices continue to soar and there is a serious lack of on-base housing.
Cuts like this do not just damage the well-being of serving families, they compromise Canada's military operations. We already have a staffing crisis in the Canadian Forces with at least 10,000 vacant positions, and thus our military readiness is compromised. One thing Canada cannot afford is to make life harder for those who serve and for their families.
[Translation]
Drummondville Trad-Cajun Festival
Mr. Speaker, do not put away your festive summer spirit just yet, because there is still some life left in this year's festival season.
This weekend, enjoy lively traditional music in a New Orleans atmosphere right in Drummondville at the second edition of the Trad-Cajun Festival at Woodyatt Park. This year, organizer Steve Veilleux has put together an amazing lineup that includes Salebarbes, Nicolas Pellerin, Les Grands Hurleurs, Lendemain de Veille and many others. Drummondville knows how to celebrate, and this weekend will be no exception.
However, not everyone in the cultural industry feels like celebrating these days. Right now, arts promoters and festival organizers are getting only bad news from the government, including 25% to 30% cuts to their funding, often announced at the very last minute. They deserve our support. Our culture deserves more, better and quicker support than that.
I want to thank festival organizers and arts promoters for showcasing our artists, and I want to wish Steve Veilleux and his crew a rip-roaring good time this weekend.
Long live the Trad-Cajun Festival.
[English]
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, this week, I introduced my first bill, Bill C-358, here in the House of Commons. This bill would remove the GST from the Liberal carbon tax. Simply put, it would remove the tax from the tax.
After eight years of the Liberal government, more and more Canadians are struggling to survive due to the rising costs of everyday goods. The Liberal carbon tax has yet to achieve a single emissions target. It is clear that the Liberal carbon tax is a tax plan, not a environmental plan. This tax on fuel, groceries and home heating is bad enough, but for GST to be charged afterward adds insult to injury.
The positive impact of this legislation would be felt across the country, especially in rural regions like Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where cars, trucks and tractors are a necessity and not a choice. I encourage colleagues from all parties to side with my common-sense bill and provide all Canadians with some relief by removing this tax on a tax.
This Liberal carbon tax is simply not worth the cost. Axe the tax.
[Translation]
Christian Lamoureux
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to pay tribute to someone I was fortunate to have in my life. Christian Lamoureux was a husband, a father and my friend.
Christian battled cancer for many years, yet despite the side effects that treatment can have, he always had a smile on his face and maintained his sense of optimism. I thank him for the time we shared at the cottage. I thank him for the many times he made us laugh. I will never forget one evening at Jason's, when he enlisted our entire group to help him look for his wallet, only to find it the next morning, right where he had left it, in his bag.
Last Friday, we all asked Christian if there was anything we could do for him. He simply told us to enjoy life to the fullest. That is a testament to his selfless love, even in times of suffering. Every one of us thanks him wholeheartedly for being part of our lives.
I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Mélanie, his children, Jade, Isabelle and Samuel, and his family.
The guys and I want to say “see you later” to Christian. We fully expect him to organize the hockey pool when we are together again someday.
[English]
I just want to remind everyone to try to keep their S.O. 31s under one minute. A few of them did go a little over.
Also, as a reminder, we are asking questions in our seats and answering questions in our seats. I see a lot of people moving around in the chamber, so I want to make sure that everybody is aware of that.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a promise that grocery prices would come down in time for Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, an article just out from The Canadian Press today says, “Prices haven't went down, so you're going to continue to see to see fairly large sticker shock on items”.
This is Canada after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, but it gets worse. The article goes on to say, “Some people are going to look at alternatives”, so they might not have a big family gathering. Happy Thanksgiving to Canada, brought to us by the Liberal-NDP government.
Will the Prime Minister keep his promise and get grocery prices down?
Mr. Speaker, we have heard loud and clear from Canadians across this country that grocery prices need to come down. Our government gets up every morning and is working hard every day to lower those prices or stabilize those prices. Not only did we call the top five largest grocery CEOs to Ottawa, but we got them on board to work on action plans that would help stabilize food prices for Canadians. That is just what they have done. We are seeing those actions roll out, with price reductions and discounts on a basket of basic goods, and we look forward to future developments.
Mr. Speaker, that is entirely not accurate. None of the prices are going down. I just read an article from The Canadian Press. Canadians know that all the prices are going up. In fact, The Ottawa Mission is now asking for turkeys. Why? It is because the price of a turkey has gone up 67% as a result of eight years of the NDP-Liberal government.
The Prime Minister made a promise three weeks ago, so I am going to ask this again: Will the Prime Minister keep his promise to get grocery prices down so Canadians can have an affordable Thanksgiving, or is he just going to go back to Rideau Cottage and hide like he recently did?
Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action with grocery CEOs. They have gotten on board. They have produced plans. They are rolling out measures. They do not know what the others are going to do. They are going to be competing to bring down and stabilize those prices.
There are many measures that we will move forward in weeks and days to come, and this is good news for Canadians, because grocery CEOs and those chains are now competing to stabilize food prices for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of when people say things like “the wheels are in motion”, “the cheque is in the mail” and those kinds of things. Canadians cannot eat a plan. Canadians cannot eat the photo op that the Prime Minister took with grocery CEOs.
The facts are the facts. Grocery prices are way up, and they continue to go up, despite these alleged plans and photo ops. Onions are up 69%, potatoes are up 76%, oranges are up 77% and turkey is up 67%.
Will the Prime Minister keep his promise? It is not hard. He made that promise. Or will he just go off on another $200,000 vacation at the taxpayers' expense in Montana?
Mr. Speaker, I know it must be hard for the leader of the Conservative Party to empathize with Canadians, when surely he does not pay for turkeys at Stornoway. We know they are free.
On federal leadership, we have demonstrated leadership and brought the five largest grocery chains to Ottawa, and we are moving forward with them to lower and stabilize food prices for Canadians. Those grocery chains are demonstrating that Canadians will really be the judge of how satisfied they are with decreases.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this Liberal government, everything in Canada costs more. Thanksgiving is just two days away, but Canadians do not feel like celebrating.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister led them down the garden path once again. Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that Canadians would see prices come down in time for Thanksgiving. Once again, that did not happen.
What could happen and what will happen, however, is the arrival of a second carbon tax implemented with the enthusiastic support of the Bloc Québécois.
A growing number of Quebeckers are starting to realize that voting for the Bloc will cost them. Does the Liberal government know that?
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, we have already started working with the major grocery store chains. They will work with us and prices will drop for Canadians.
We also know that the climate action incentive payments will go out to Canadians next week. That is the reality.
While we have been working to improve Canadians' quality of life, the Conservatives have done nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the parliamentary secretary for answering my question in French. I congratulate him on the quality of his French.
However, the thanks end there, because what he said does not reflect the reality. Prices are going up. Yesterday, the minister was so proud to say that prices would come down this weekend, but that is not true. Some announcements have been made, which always seems to happen this time of year. The fact of the matter is that, once again, the Liberals are too greedy and want to raise taxes. That is the worst thing to do when people are struggling. When will the Liberals come to their senses?
Mr. Speaker, we are working with the industry. We are working with the grocery chains. We have instructed them to lower prices, and they are going to do just that. They have already begun to do so. Canadians will see a difference in the coming days. That is the reality. The Conservatives can say whatever they want and invent whatever facts they want, but the reality is that Canadians' quality of life will improve thanks to us.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, this week Radio-Canada did a piece on foreign workers who are being exploited by the multinational Newrest. They were told that if they came to Canada on a tourist visa and they worked for the company, they would be given a work permit later. Obviously that is not true, and the workers are subjected to illegal working conditions under the threat of expulsion. According to the Immigrant Workers Centre, 400 people in two years have been victims of the same trap after having been recruited by a placement firm, the Trésor agency in this case.
My question for the minister is simple. Has he taken up the case?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the mistreatment and abuse of temporary foreign workers is unacceptable. Everyone deserves to work in safe, healthy and dignified conditions. Under our watch, we have mandated that employers provide all TFWs with information about their rights in Canada, have prohibited reprisal by employers against workers who come forward with complaints and have prohibited employers from charging recruitment fees to workers.
We know there is more work to do. That is why we are strengthening our integrity measures to ensure that temporary foreign workers live and work in a safe and decent environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the news piece talked about a specific case, but it is hard to believe it is the only one. It is even harder to believe that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has control over the situation after it lost track of one million temporary immigrants.
Obviously we need to prevent this illegal exploitation in our country from happening and crack down on criminal enterprises, but the minister must also take the lead and make it known abroad that this practice is a trap. Again, I have a simple question for the minister. What is he doing to put an end to this abhorrent exploitation?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, temporary foreign workers have the same rights to workplace protections as Canadians. We have a requirement that employers and recruiters cannot charge recruitment fees to or recover them from TFWs, for example.
We launched the migrant worker support program to assist TFWs in learning about and exercising their rights. We will continue engaging migrant worker support organizations, employers and other partners to further strengthen protections for Canada's temporary foreign workers.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, at a “glacial pace” is how a recent report described the speed at which the Liberals have been moving to implement the truth and reconciliation calls to action. It is an average of just two calls to action per year. At this rate, it will take 42 years to complete all of them.
For a government that says it is committed to reconciliation, its actions tell a different story. When will the government pick up the pace and ensure that all the calls to action are implemented without delay?
Mr. Speaker, let us roll back the tape a bit. In 2015, when we were elected, the former Conservative government refused to meet with indigenous leaders in this country. In fact, indigenous leaders could not meet with the previous prime minister and could not move forward an agenda of reconciliation whatsoever. In fact, the previous prime minister said that an inquiry into the murdered and missing indigenous women in this country was not on his radar.
We have moved in tangible ways, including with respect to equity, and we will continue to do that hard work.
Uqaqtittiji, that was a disappointing response.
I will turn to a question on the searches that have uncovered hundreds of graves of children at former residential schools across the country.
As communities grieve, they are looking for answers. Due to a lack of clarity from all levels of government, these families cannot access the records they deserve. Even the government's special interlocutor is experiencing barriers.
When will the government take responsibility and give indigenous peoples the funding and access to information they need toward healing?
Mr. Speaker, residential schools are a sad reality of Canada's history, and their painful legacy continues to be felt today across Canada. We are working in partnership to provide the resources needed as communities continue to do the very important and challenging work of locating, identifying and commemorating the remains of those who were stolen from their families and prevented from coming home.
As of today, we have supported 117 commemoration and search projects, for a total of $160.4 million. As more potential burial sites are found at former residential schools, we remain committed to supporting communities in addressing their priorities as they work—
Grocery Industry
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hurting, and as we head into Thanksgiving, food banks are on the front line of the cost of living and food-insecurity crises created by eight years of the NDP-Liberal government.
In Barrie, food bank usage is up 94% in one year. Executive director Sharon Palmer told Simcoe.com this week, “With rents where they are, the price of gas and food, we're seeing more families struggling.” There is no evidence anywhere that the promise the Prime Minister made three weeks ago has lowered grocery prices.
Where are the grocery prices, and why have they not been lowered?
Mr. Speaker, our government is the only party in this House that is prepared to take action. We have called in the CEOs of the largest grocery chains. They have come back with a response. We have worked with the manufacturers, and they are coming back with a response. These responses will result in a direct benefit to Canadians in terms of lower prices, and that work is going to continue. We are going to hold grocery chains and manufacturers to account and we are going to keep doing so until the affordability that Canadians deserve is delivered to them.
Mr. Speaker, the promise has not been kept. The cost of living and food-insecurity crises created after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government have also hit families hard as they go to buy turkey this weekend. Prices for turkeys have shot up 67% since 2015. On top of that, potatoes are up 77%, while carrots are up 74% in the same time. The legend of the bird's power to induce sleepiness, a sort of turkey coma, is proving to be a myth. Canadians have now awakened to the fact that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
Where are the lower grocery prices he promised three weeks ago?
Mr. Speaker, our government is fighting for Canadians on affordability every step of the way. We are fully seized with addressing the affordability challenges that Canadians are facing. We called in the top five grocery chain CEOs to help stabilize food prices. They have come up with plans that they are now implementing.
The fact that Conservatives call that a photo op, when it is a decisive action for Canadians, says more about them than it does about us. Regardless of Conservative attacks, we will keep pressing on and fighting for affordability for Canadians.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, Global News published a report just last week that over seven million Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. Let us talk turkey. Under the last Conservative government, turkey cost only $1.49 a pound, but under the Liberals, it is $2.49 that Canadians have to pay. That is a 67% increase. The Liberal-NDP carbon tax is hurting everyday Canadians, who are just trying to have a nice Thanksgiving dinner with their families. After eight long years of the Liberals, Canadians have had enough.
Why are the Liberals not axing the carbon tax so Canadians can bring home affordable dinners this Thanksgiving weekend?
Mr. Speaker, for days, I have listened to Conservatives across the way filibuster a bill that would make a difference. When we talk about competition, as a government, that is what we want to see. This is one reason that we called the five major grocery chains to Ottawa. What do the Conservatives say? They say it is an op. When it comes to legislation, what do they do? They talk. They are not prepared to get behind Canadians when they need to be there in a very real way. They should stand up and vote for the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, that sounded like a bunch of gobbledygook. In my riding, we have some of the best turkey producers in Canada, but the Liberal-NDP carbon tax is increasing the cost to feed their turkeys and heat their barns. When the Liberals tax the farmers who grow the food and the truckers who ship the food, Canadians have to pay more to buy the food. Canadians know that the Liberal-NDP coalition is just not worth the cost.
Will the Prime Minister stop his photo ops, get back to work and axe the carbon tax, or is he just going to wreck Thanksgiving for everyone?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Dairy Farmers of Canada have committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Egg Farmers of Canada also announced that they want to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Grain Growers of Canada also committed to reaching net zero by 2050.
Farmers understand how climate change is impacting their sector and that we need to put measures in place to fight it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this government, Canada is in debt, divided and humiliated.
Despite all that, the Bloc Québécois is backing the Liberals on the second carbon tax. It even voted in favour of it on two occasions.
Believe it or not, the Bloc Québécois is calling for a radical increase in this tax. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is so costly that no one can afford it.
As Thanksgiving approaches, what does the government intend to do to ensure that Canadians can have a good meal, as promised?
Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians are wondering why the Conservative Party of Canada is supporting Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has put a moratorium on renewable energy projects in Alberta.
That decision is putting $30 billion at risk, while the Conservatives say they are in favour of clean technologies and the free market. Will they do the same in Quebec? Will the Conservative Party oppose renewable energy development in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario?
I think Canadians want to know.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' inflationary taxes, supported by the Bloc Québécois, are having a very serious impact.
According to a recent poll, 46% of consumers are buying lower quality food because it costs less, and 63% are concerned that those choices are having a negative impact on their health.
Contrary to what the Bloc Québécois would have people believe, the second carbon tax does apply in Quebec and it will drive up the price of all consumer products.
The question is very simple. Will this government show some empathy and cancel the two carbon taxes?
Mr. Speaker, what I cannot understand is how, in 2023, a party aspiring to form government can have no climate change plan and nothing to say to the tens of thousands of Quebeckers who have been affected by the flooding and wildfires this summer and to the people across the country, particularly in Quebec, who have been displaced.
The Conservative Party is saying that what it is going to do is make pollution free and let oil companies pollute our water, air and the health of our communities even more. That is the Conservative Party of Canada's environmental plan.
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, our SMEs are unable to repay their CEBA loans on time after being squeezed by inflation. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 250,000 businesses will go bankrupt next year if the federal government does not offer them some flexibility.
The Quebec National Assembly has heard this dire warning. It is unanimously calling on the federal government to significantly extend the deadline for the repayment of CEBA loans. Is that clear enough?
Will the government listen to the Quebec National Assembly and take action?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one thing we recognize is that small business in Canada is the backbone of our Canadian economy in all regions of our country.
That is one of the reasons we developed, during the pandemic, programs such as loan supports, rent supports and wage loss supports, because we understand the importance of small businesses to Canada.
The minister will continue to work with small businesses to ensure that we are there to have their backs and protect jobs into the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in case it was not clear enough, I am talking about the Canada emergency business account.
All the parties in the Quebec National Assembly are saying the same thing. We are headed towards 250,000 small and medium-sized businesses going bankrupt unless Ottawa assesses each case and offers deferrals, as needed.
If Ottawa thinks it will get its money back faster with 250,000 bankruptcies, it is mistaken. If Ottawa thinks it makes financial sense to put the employees of 250,000 SMEs out of work, it is mistaken.
When will this government finally listen to reason?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we announced a bit of an extension just recently.
We are very aware of the pains that small businesses are experiencing, in good part, because of the pandemic. As I said, as a government, whether it has been reducing taxes for small business or being there to support them in regard to what I made reference to in terms of rent subsidies, wage losses and CEBA loans, the Government of Canada is there for small business. We recognize just how important it is to our economy in all regions of our country.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal coalition has driven demand for food banks to a 42-year high. The Liberal MP for Avalon said, “I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries.”
CTV News has reported that a large number of people cannot afford Thanksgiving dinner this year. For those people especially, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
Will he axe the carbon tax to lower prices, or will he break his promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is that this member opposite purports to stand up for fish harvesters, but the fishers across this country tell us that climate change is real. They are concerned about the future of fish harvests and about the future of their economies and local communities.
If the members opposite care about affordability in Newfoundland and Labrador, why do they vote against technology and advancement in industry to fight climate change and ultimately protect fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should know better. Her 23 buddies from Atlantic Canada should know better, because they all voted against the motion to axe the carbon tax that we put forward earlier this week. The lone holdout over there, the Liberal member for Avalon, said that everywhere he goes, people are losing faith in the Liberal Party.
To lower food prices in provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador, which is so dependent on fuel for shipping, the carbon tax has to go. Will the Prime Minister axe the tax to lower prices for food in Newfoundland and Labrador, or will he break his promise to the people?
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past eight years, we have had a number of opportunities to see where the Conservative Party stands when it comes to supporting measures that are actually going to fight climate change and create good jobs in our region.
Time after time, they oppose reasonable measures that are going to reduce pollution and prevent the kinds of severe weather events that my communities have been impacted by. These events include hurricane Fiona, wildfires such as we have never seen and floods that have literally taken the lives of my community members.
The Conservatives have a chance to support a concrete measure by voting for Bill C-49, which would create well-paying jobs in clean industries. Why does the member oppose well-paying jobs in his community?
Grocery Industry
Mr. Speaker, the people of Central Nova want to know why that member voted 23 times to increase their taxes and increase the cost of food.
After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, even this Prime Minister's own MPs are admitting that people cannot afford to buy groceries. Lettuce is up 94%. Onions are up 69%. Carrots are up 74%. In the last year of the Conservative government, a turkey cost $1.49 a pound. Now it is $2.49 a pound. That is a Liberal 67% increase.
The Liberal Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. The Prime Minister promised to reduce grocery prices. Why is he breaking his promise?
Mr. Speaker, the people of Central Nova are benefiting from a middle-class tax cut we put in place back in 2015. They are benefiting from a Canada child benefit, which delivers thousands of dollars every year to families who are struggling with the cost of raising kids. They are benefiting from a new Canada dental benefit. They are benefiting from new measures that are going to build more houses. They are going to benefit from measures that are going to help protect against further rises in the cost of groceries.
I wonder if the people of South Shore—St. Margarets are starting to ask questions about why their member opposes all these points.
Mr. Speaker, the people of South Shore—St. Margarets are asking why the member's solution to the grocery food challenge is that they should watch flyers and clip coupons. Only one Liberal actually understands what is happening and is listening to their constituents, when people are saying that they cannot afford to heat their homes and buy food.
A Liberal MP said that Liberals have made it more expensive for people, to a level that they cannot handle. Even this Liberal believes that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
I will ask this again: Will the Prime Minister keep his promise to lower food costs, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to acknowledge that we need to do more to continue to support low-income families who are struggling with the rising cost of living. However, if the hon. member is asking questions about families who are having challenges trying to heat their homes, why did he describe our program that is helping cover the cost of heat pumps to get people off home-heating oil as some “fairy tale” program?
We give upfront cash to families so that they can cover the cost without having to put up their own money first. We are going to continue to advance measures to make life more affordable, mitigate against further rises to the cost of groceries and help the people who call my community home.
Mr. Speaker, it is Thanksgiving weekend and three out of five Canadians are being forced to take healthy food out of their carts because of the cost. After two years of inaction, the Liberals' out-of-touch solution is to leave it up to rich grocery CEOs. We know Conservatives have no serious plans to confront corporate greed. A year ago, the NDP successfully launched an investigation into food prices and now we have a bill that will lower prices, not just stabilize them.
Will the Liberals do the right thing and support the NDP's plan to lower food prices?
Mr. Speaker, we are doing the right thing, which is to bring the grocery CEOs of the largest grocery chains in the country to the table and get them on board with an action plan to help fight for affordability for Canadians. They have committed to implementing action plans that include discounts on a basket of basic goods, bringing back price-matching because some of them did not have that before and introducing price freezes for Canadians.
I do not think that those measures are insignificant. I think they are going to make a tangible difference for Canadians. Canadians will be the judge and we will find out in the coming days and weeks.
Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, accessible transit is critical for people living with disabilities, but in this country transit is underfunded so it is not meeting accessibility demands. In my community this means that the transit authority is pushing people into taxis that do not meet their needs. Because the Liberals are holding back federal transit funding until 2026, Canadians with disabilities are being left behind.
Will the minister immediately release the public transit funding that has been promised and bring equity to transit?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her concern for people living with disabilities.
One of the things that we know well is that when we invest in public transit, it helps people move throughout their communities, disproportionately benefiting low-income families, people living with disabilities and seniors.
That is why we made historic investments through the investing in Canada infrastructure plan to have unprecedented levels of federal money going toward building our transit projects, including accessible transit projects.
That is why we moved forward with the rural transit solutions fund to make sure that small communities benefit. That is why we have now committed to a permanent public transit fund that will be coming in the years ahead to ensure we continue to make these investments, going forward in perpetuity.
Innovation, Science and Industry
Mr. Speaker, teachers across the country deserve recognition every day for shaping the lives of our young people and encouraging them to pursue their ambitions.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry update this House on the Prime Minister's award for teaching excellence in the STEM fields and what we are doing to support students and educators in this important subject?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us have a teacher, or many, in mind who shaped our future in significant ways. The Prime Minister's awards for teaching excellence in science, technology and math recognize elementary and high school teachers across the country who have meaningfully contributed to the lives of their students by supporting and mentoring them in school.
Today and every day, we should continue to recognize the impactful role that educators play in setting their students up for success in their future endeavours.
We give our thanks to teachers.
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, the ArriveCAN scandal is back in the news and reports are that the two-man operation that made $11 million off the arrive scam were running a scheme that now has officials being investigated by the RCMP.
After eight years of the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government, Liberal insiders are getting rich and Canadians are seeing that the Prime Minister just is not worth the cost.
When will the Prime Minister stop putting Liberal insiders and his friends first and start looking out for the needs of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, we expect that all contracts issued follow the laws and regulations of this country. Any allegations of misconduct will be investigated. Let me assure all Canadians that the government is looking forward to any results of these reviews and recommendations, but misconduct and wrongdoing will have consequences.
Mr. Speaker, you will have to excuse us if we are not just going to take their word for it.
What we want to hear from the government is that the NDP-Liberal coalition is going to vote in favour of an investigation at the government operations committee so that Canadians can have transparency and answers. This $54-million boondoggle that saw insiders getting rich while Canadians are lined up at food banks is absolutely unacceptable. Now, with the Mounties knocking at the door, they are saying, “Please, just trust us and we're going to make sure all the rules were followed.” They were not followed before and we do not trust that they are going to make sure that they are followed now.
Will the out-of-touch Prime Minister have his NDP-Liberal government—
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we trust our law enforcement agencies, like the RCMP, to investigate any wrongdoing. We do not think that Conservative members who want to make political clickbait out of this actually get to the bottom of any sort of wrongdoing. We take allegations very seriously. We are going to ensure that investigations move forward with integrity and not for Conservative political gain. Wrongdoing will have consequences.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, speaking of investigation, for five months, the Liberals have pulled out all the stops to prevent an investigation into the shocking and incomprehensible transfer of notorious killer Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison. Victims' families were not even informed of the transfer until it was already under way; so much for victims' rights.
The trust of Canadians and victims' families in our justice system has been shattered by this failure and it is up to us in this House to restore that trust. When will the Liberals stop preventing accountability, and let the public safety committee investigate?
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it was actually our motion, which many parties agreed to, to conduct a study on the issue of transfers. The Conservatives are in damage control right now because they voted against it. I find it appalling that the Conservative members would use the issue of one of the most heinous crimes against women as a way to fundraise and create clickbait. If they want to conduct this study, then support the motion that we put on the floor to do so.
Mr. Speaker, it is that Liberal member and her colleagues who voted against the Conservative motion to bring victims' representatives to committee two times. The Liberals do not want an investigation; they want a whitewash. I wish I did not have to stand in this House and ask those questions today. I wish that killer, Paul Bernardo, was sitting in a maximum-security prison today. I wish that the Liberal government had not stood by and let this transfer happen, but it did.
Canadians deserve answers. Victims' families deserve to know why and how this was allowed to happen. The Liberals can let us get those answers by letting the public safety committee investigate. Will they, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we supported and put forward a motion to study these very transfers. The Conservatives use heinous crimes and the suffering of women and violence against women as a way to block government legislation. Bill C-20 would have tangible results to protect women in the workplace with respect to sexual harassment. The Conservatives time and time again use clickbait, instead of real action to protect women.
[Translation]
Families, Children and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, at a time when groceries are more expensive than ever, I want to take us back to the last election campaign. The Liberals promised Quebec and the provinces $1 billion over five years to fund school meal programs. We have heard nothing about it ever since. With inflation squeezing families, it is high time the Liberals kept that promise.
When will the government give Quebec and the provinces the $1 billion promised for school meal programs?
Mr. Speaker, we all know that life for Canadians is a little tough right now. We will continue to work together to improve the situation. We will continue to work with all the provinces and Quebec to help on various fronts, particularly on the issue of food for children. We will continue to work together to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, last year there were already 1.8 million children living with food insecurity and the price of food has only continued to rise. It is high time we helped these children.
In Quebec, we already have quality organizations that are just waiting for the funding the Liberals had promised. Needless to say, Quebeckers are siding with the organizations. Some 84% of people want the Liberals to keep their promise.
When will they give Quebec and the provinces the billion dollars they promised for children's lunches?
Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that there are children in this country, whoever and wherever they may be, who are having trouble getting enough to eat. Everyone must have access to food. There is no denying that we need to keep working with the provinces and we will continue to work closely with them to fix the situation. That is very important to all of us here.
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, Canada's banking regulator has reported that one in five mortgages at three banks are in negative amortization. In simple terms, homeowners cannot afford to pay their mortgages.
Mortgage rates have increased at the fastest pace in history because of the Liberal government's failed policies. Deficits lead to inflation, which leads to higher interest rates, which, as should be obvious to the NDP-Liberal coalition right now, lead to higher mortgage costs.
When are the Liberals going to acknowledge the pain their broken economic policies are causing Canadians and end these massive deficits?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts, because that is something we do on this side of the House.
Inflation is half of what it was last July. We know for a fact that over one million jobs have been created since the pandemic, almost 64,000 jobs in September alone. We know that life is challenging for Canadians, but we also know the steps that are being taken are going to make life more affordable for Canadians. That is the work that we are doing on this of the House.
If the Conservatives care about Canadians and about affordability, why do they keep voting against every single measure we put forward to make life more affordable for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member across the way uses selective statistics. Yes, 64,000 jobs were created in September, but that is because there are fewer people actually working full time. The actual number of hours worked has gone down by 0.2%, in the same report.
Many Canadian homeowners are now clearly underwater on their mortgage payments, and the number is growing by 100,000 per month. After eight years, a home affordability crisis is upon us. It is obvious that the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the increasing cost.
Sooner than later, please, will the government get out of the way so Conservatives could fix what it has so obviously broken?
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the history of Conservative mismanagement of the finances of this country, Canadians should be grateful that there is no Conservative government currently in control.
The reality is that under this government our AAA credit rating continues to be the hallmark. If members look at the G7, we continue to lead. We continue to be a strong player in terms of where our credit rating lies, in terms of where inflation numbers and, most importantly, in terms of the supports we are giving Canadians to help them today.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, when we say that the cost of living is going up, we are not making it up. This week, Le Journal de Québec said, “‘It is a real disaster!’ Requests for food assistance are being denied for the first time in 37 years”.
That is a sign that our society has a serious problem. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois wants to radically increase the second carbon tax. Should this government not show a little more compassion and help our food banks? That is just common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand how it is common sense to impose a moratorium on renewable energy projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs and generate tens of billions of dollars. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada supports. That is what the Premier of Alberta is doing.
My question for the Conservatives is this. Will they block renewable energy projects in Quebec? Will they block renewable energy projects in Ontario? Will they block renewable energy projects in the Atlantic provinces? That is my question for them.
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, our Liberal government is a proud defender of Canada's supply management system. The dairy sector is an important pillar in communities across Quebec and a key economic driver. We know that the government is committed to fully and fairly compensating producers and processors who have lost market share as a result of recent trade agreements.
How is the government helping the dairy industry in Quebec and across the country?
Mr. Speaker, promise made, promise kept.
Last week, the minister and I announced $333 million for dairy processors in response to the issue of the non-fat solids structures. This is good news for our dairy producers. It is good news for our dairy processors. It is good news for Quebec, and it is good news for Canada.
[English]
Health
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal approach to addiction is not worth the risk. According to Durham Region Health, opioid deaths have gone up almost 700% under the NDP-Liberal government. Our loved ones are suffering and dying under this dangerous safe supply experiment.
There are three Liberal MPs in Durham region and one of them is now the Minister of Health. “Safe supply” is a nice marketing slogan, but it is not worth the cost.
Does the minister really consider a 700% increase in deaths safe?
Mr. Speaker, this week is Mental Illness Awareness Week, and this is the first question we have had this week from the Conservatives asking about the well-being of Canadians.
I will answer the member by saying this. On this side of the House, we do not put in a false narrative between harm reduction and treatment. We look at Canadians and where they need help each and every day. On the overdose and toxic drug supply in this country, we will continue to use every tool we have: prevention, harm reduction, law enforcement and treatment. We will be there to save lives.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a false narrative. It is 13 addiction expert. She should read the letters and take their advice, which clearly states, “We believe that it is irresponsible for Unsupervised Free Government Funded Hydromorphone to be allowed to continue.”
In Oshawa I witnessed this travesty first-hand. In the first four months alone, there have been 2,541 calls for service to downtown Oshawa. After eight years, it is not that the NDP-Liberal government has done nothing; it has actually made it worse.
This reckless approach is not worth the cost. When are they going to end it?
Mr. Speaker, it is not worth taking the risk on the outdated perspectives of the Conservative government when it comes to addiction.
I will quote Ben Perrin, the public safety and justice adviser of former prime minister Harper, who sat in this House. He said the opposition is “rehashing Conservative, war-on-drugs tropes that have been long since discredited and have been found to be not only ineffective but costly and deadly.”
Conservatives are not worth the risk when we are here to save lives.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Liberal carbon tax was supposed to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but after eight years they are higher than ever, and the cost of fuel and groceries is unaffordable.
After eight years, the Liberals were supposed to have alternatives to carbon, like better transit and EV charging stations everywhere, but they failed on that too. Now whistler-blowers say that nearly $40 million for clean technology was misdirected by Liberal appointees.
For the sake of the planet, will the Liberals admit that they are making Canadians poorer and Liberal insiders richer and that they are just not worth the cost?
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the planet, Canadians, and the world, frankly, cannot afford the Conservative Party of Canada. With the Conservative Party of Canada, gone are the programs to support more than 300 projects that are under construction for transit all across the country. For electric buses announced in Alberta, in Ontario and in Quebec, gone are the programs. Gone are the programs to help people lower their energy bills and save money so they can fight climate change and fight affordability at the same time. Those initiatives will be gone under the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what Canadians can expect from its members.
Mr. Speaker, climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and carbon pricing is the backbone of our climate plan. It has been one year since the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was named leader, and he has offered Canadians absolutely nothing in terms of climate policy. There are no plans, no solutions.
In 2023, Canadians know how important it is to fight climate change. Our government has a plan to address both affordability and climate change, but the Conservatives do not have either. Our government's approach is working.
Can the Minister of Environment tell us what a household can expect to receive next week with the federal government's pollution pricing rebate?
Mr. Speaker, putting a price on pollution is one of the best ways to fight climate change, and it is why our emissions are down 50 million tonnes. It is the equivalent of removing 11 million gas-powered vehicles from our roads.
Next Friday, Canadians can expect to get $386 in Alberta, $264 in Manitoba, $244 in Ontario, $340 in Saskatchewan, $328 in Newfoundland and Labrador, $248 in Nova Scotia, $240 in Prince Edward Island and $368 in New Brunswick, which is a double payment. This is how we are helping Canadians fight climate change and working on affordability.
Health
Mr. Speaker, Canada's blood inventory is entering its fourth month of serious shortages. This is the first time this has ever happened. This dangerous situation is putting patients at risk. If collections drop further, elective surgeries may have to be cancelled.
Experts warned the Liberals that privatizing plasma collection would jeopardize our blood supply. Allowing companies to pay donors is clearly hurting Canadian Blood Services. What is the government doing to protect our national blood supply?
Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety and quality of Canada's blood supply is our top priority. Health Canada regulates plasma sites to ensure plasma products sold in Canada are manufactured in accordance with strict safety standards. Health Canada will take action if those strict standards and regulations are not upheld.
Provinces and territories determine whether and how plasma is collected in their jurisdictions, including whether the sites pay donors for their donations. A number of provinces, including Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, do not currently allow for paid plasma donation.
We are committed to ensuring that the collection of plasma and its—
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation is still waiting to find out from the Canada Energy Regulator the reasons it gave in to the TMX pipeline and approved a new route that violates a key commitment to enter the territory of the first nation. Without reasons, the first nation cannot pursue its court remedy.
One thing they do not have to wait for is construction to begin through the most sacred areas of their territory, known as the Pípsell. The Pípsell area is essentially for that community what the Garden of Eden is for people in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Will the government instruct the Crown corporation to stop destruction of the Pípsell at least until reasons are provided and legal remedies can be pursued?
Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight that our government is the one that put UNDRIP into law. That was after the Conservatives refused to even recognize UNDRIP as something that was worth support. We have also recently, in the past year, put in the UNDRIP action plan. We are continuing on that work.
As for the decision the member opposite is referring to, I want to emphasize that it was made by an independent quasi-judicial body that is not a government agency, and they have said that they will be providing reasons for decisions shortly. We are looking forward to seeing that.
That is all the time we have for question period today.
I have just a quick reminder, before I go to points of order, about the usage of T-shirts with words on them. We should make sure to try to be careful with those.
The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I have some feedback from a member's constituents in Avalon, and I would like to read some of the things he had to say—
Mr. Speaker, I move to table a transcript about comments made by the member for Avalon.
[Translation]
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Chair made several interventions on two subjects: the tone of exchanges in the House and the importance of ensuring that opposition questions are addressed to the government. I would argue that I met those two criteria today. I calmly asked the Minister of Immigration, who represents the government, important questions on a serious topic. I would like clarification from the House on the fact that the answers did not come from the Minister of Immigration, but rather from the parliamentary secretary of a different department.
Mr. Speaker, I was upset to see the minister remain seated when my colleague asked her question about the terrible matter of exploited foreign workers. It reminded me of comments by columnist Emmanuelle Latraverse, who said that the minister should get busy reforming the immigration system instead of sending out tweets. She also said that he never misses an occasion to be a troll on X, formerly Twitter. These issues are serious and timely. The minister should be paying closer attention to his department.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, it is a long-standing practice of the House that for responses to questions, who is going to answer a question is at the discretion of the government. If members want to, they can always ask a late show question to try to get a more detailed answer given the limitations of question period.
[Translation]
I agree with the hon. parliamentary secretary on this point. It is up to the government to decide who answers the opposition's questions.
[English]
We have another point of order, from the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document. It is a transcript that concerns a matter before the House.
“I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit,” a member said—
This is sounding like debate, but I will ask if members want to allow the document to be tabled.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent from the House to table a document. It is the voting record that shows the Liberal member for Avalon voting to scrap the failed carbon tax and voting with the Conservatives.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I hope this is the last one.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document regarding the comments made by the member for Avalon, who said the following:
[English]
“I know the government is pushing people [to] switching over to heat pumps and whatnot”—
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, on that point, it is clear that somebody else is probably going to stand up and try to do the exact same thing. I would ask, with your indulgence, that you consider speaking to the members of the opposition. We know what they are up to.
I said that I hoped that was the last one, so it was my suggestion that it be the last one.
The hon. for King—Vaughan has a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I was just informed today that my vote yesterday on Bill S-12, after receiving confirmation from IT that I voted yea, was not recorded. I have contacted IT and they are looking into the matter, and I would like my vote to count.
Mr. Speaker, we are inclined to be supportive of this, but it would have been really nice if the member had reached out to us to let us know in advance that she would be doing this, requesting what I imagine is unanimous consent to have that recorded. Perhaps she could endeavour to do that, so that when this UC motion, which is obviously important to the member, comes up, we can treat it very seriously. Maybe she could just hold off and have her whip's office talk to our whip's office so we can coordinate and bring this up at the next opportunity.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what I understood from my colleague is that she wants this checked. It is not a request for consent. It is about checking with IT, because she has confirmed that her vote was not properly recorded. I think her request is more along those lines.
I invite the Chair to reflect on this and take it under advisement.
[English]
Quickly, let us go back to the history of this. Yesterday, after the vote, the system did not log the vote for the hon. member for King—Vaughan. Therefore, it put a little tag on her vote. It was brought up by the Bloc members that the picture was not there. We did make the call that day as to whether the hon. member was online, and she was not online to be able to vote one way or another. Therefore, I would probably suggest that we have her people talk to your people, and then she can come back and maybe do a unanimous consent motion just to make it as clean as we possibly can. That is good.
The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.
Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I want to bring to the attention of the House that yesterday, the Conservative deputy whip, after the vote, opposed members' being able to register their vote in this fashion. It was the Conservative deputy whip who opposed others, so I believe the members of the Conservative Party should have a conversation.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, three reports from the delegation of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, or APF.
The first concerns its participation at the meeting of the Bureau of the APF held in France from January 28 to February 2, 2023. The second concerns its participation in a parliamentary mission to the United Nations held in New York on March 14 and 15, 2023. The last report concerns its participation at the meeting of the APF Political Committee and the Working Group on Reforming the APF Constitution, held in France, from April 17 to 20, 2023.
[English]
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present four more petitions from concerned citizens of North Okanagan—Shuswap. These petitions call on the Minister of Health to work with the national health products industry and adjust Health Canada's cost recovery rates to accurately reflect the size and scope of the industry, implementing changes only once the self-care framework is adjusted.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition that was put forward by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
As we all know, the effects of climate change are upon us, which are costly to the environment, but there are also costs to human health. The organization notes that one in seven, or up to 34,000, premature deaths in Canada is related to fossil fuel air pollution. This petition calls for a ban on all advertising related to fossil fuels in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition of great concern to the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners put to the House that indigenous peoples have, from time immemorial, shown stewardship for the lands and waters of what we now call Canada, and that indigenous knowledge is an important, critical component in responding to the climate crisis. They also point out that the lands and territories of first nations are where the old-growth forests, the original forests, are still found, but in dwindling percentage of the original forest cover.
Therefore, in pointing out that the long-term needs of responding to the climate crisis include protecting old-growth forests, the petitioners call on the federal government to work with indigenous governments and indigenous peoples for the shared stewardship and conservation, and the immediate halt of all logging of ancient forests in this country for climate biodiversity and for indigenous reconciliation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by many in regard to our growing retiree population in Canada. Retirees are increasingly becoming the target of fraud, given that they have built up wealth over a lifetime to help them support their retirement years, and are vulnerable due to the lack of controls and protections through the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system.
The petitioners are calling for us to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system of Canadian citizens' money in this country, with the aim of putting more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards in place to protect seniors in particular from losing their lifetime savings and wealth through fraud.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that is fairly timely, from petitioners who call for the Government of Canada to follow through on the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The petitioners note that the Government of Canada has followed through on only a very small fraction of those calls to action since they were released in 2015.
The petitioners go on to note several of particular importance to them. I will call out just one: call to action number 21, recommending providing “sustainable funding for existing and new [indigenous] healing centres”.
The petitioners go on to call on the Government of Canada to follow through on all 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Questions on the Order Paper
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the mandates of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord. The primary goal of this legislation is to provide for a new approval process for the development of oil and gas projects off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the mandates of these two boards.
When second reading of this bill started a week or so ago, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada thought they would use their speeches and the speeches of the official opposition to try to make this about some sort of strange “If one is not with the Liberals on Bill C-49, then one must be against Atlantic Canada” idea.
In fact, they came out of their caucus meeting and actually said that they think they could distract people after giving the Prime Minister all of this bad news about what we have been hearing in the summer. They thought they would come out of the caucus meeting and try to hold a shiny thing over here to see if their constituents would be distracted. The distraction attempt for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was from the Liberals' failure to address the primary concern they heard over the summer from their communities: the cost of living.
There have been 24 times that all of them, except for one now, have voted to increase the cost of everything. One can almost hear the Liberals in their meetings saying that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, people might forget that their home heating oil bills have more than doubled under the NDP-Liberals; that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, all the complaints they heard from people in the summer, of having lost faith in this government and forcing the cost of everything up, might be forgotten; and that, maybe, all of the damage they have done to themselves and their constituents will be forgotten.
Just so everyone knows, it is tied to Bill C-49 because they were using that as a bright, shiny object to try to distract from those failures. What are those failures they are using Bill C-49 to try to distract from? I think they are actually best captured by the words of the member for Avalon. For those watching, the member for Avalon is a Liberal member of Parliament from Newfoundland. On the show Power and Politics, he said this, and let me start with this quote, as I think it is a great one: “I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.” That affordability crisis, of course, is that which Conservatives have been talking about for the last year, and of which Liberal members of Parliament live in denial.
The Liberal member for Avalon goes on, on the program, to say, “I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit”, with “them” being his constituents. He says, “Everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, ‘You know, we're losing faith in the Liberal Party.’ I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries.” The Liberal member for Avalon then goes on to say, “They can't afford to heat their homes, and that's hard to hear from, especially, seniors who live alone and tell me they go around their house in the spring and wintertime with a blanket wrapped around them, because they can't afford the home heating fuel. They can't afford to buy beef or chicken.” We have been telling the Liberals that, yet they are trying to use Bill C-49 as a distraction from the day-to-day challenges they have caused Canadians.
The member for Avalon obviously had a private conversation with the Minister of Finance around this time. He said, “I told the minister, when she came to Newfoundland, about this, and she told me, she said, ‘I'm going to correct this. You're right.’” She actually said she is going to correct it. We are still waiting. Not only do they break promises to Canadians; they also break promises to their own backbenchers.
The Liberal member for Avalon goes on to say, “We can't keep adding on to expenses, and David,” which is the name of the host, “you know that everything in our province comes in by boat and truck. They burn fuel. Lots of it. That's the cost to bring it in, and it's going to be added to every item that gets on a store shelf somewhere.”
That is punishing anybody who goes to buy something, whether it is a chocolate bar or a tin of milk. It is anything. A piece of two-by-four will go up, which will make homes more expensive to build. I think our leader has been saying that for a year, and there has been nothing but deaf ears on the other side, except for one fellow who found religion after talking to his constituents for three months in the summer.
The same Liberal member went onto say, “I think they,” being the Liberals, “will lose seats not just in Newfoundland, not just in Atlantic Canada, but indeed right across the country if they don't get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. It is interesting that he is calling his own party “they” as if he is not part of them anymore and had not voted 23 times before this for the carbon tax. Now, on the 24th time, he has changed his mind and flip-flopped. It is unusual for a Liberal to flip-flop.
He said “get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. This one is hitting home to everybody I speak to and it is a grassroots issue. If an election were called today, I am not sure the Liberal Party would actually form the government. I am pretty sure that would not happen if an election were held today, and they would not be in government.
The hurt and pain that has been caused by the Liberals out there, because of their inflationary deficits and carbon tax, is causing a great deal of hardship that is not recognized by 157 Liberal members, and their cohorts in the NDP who support all of this, but the 158th member has finally got it. Maybe it will take another two years for the other Liberals to get it.
This is the counter to the bright, shiny distraction the Liberals are trying to do with Bill C-49. They are trying to make some crazy accusations about who supports Atlantic Canadians. Apparently, according to the member for Avalon, Liberals do not support Atlantic Canadians. He goes on to say, “And I know the government is pushing people to switch over to heat pumps.” We hear that all the time, including today from the member for Central Nova. He says, “Many homes, especially the older homes, are not designed for that. They are not built to sustain the heat from a heat pump, so I don't think it works.”
Quite frankly, to show how out of touch the member for Central Nova is with his bright, shiny $10,000 heat pumps that he is pushing for all the companies that he knows and likes in Nova Scotia, the fact is if someone is living on CPP, disability or a fixed income, they do not have $10,000 for a heat pump.
Apparently, in the golden world the Liberals live in with $200,000 vacations for the Prime Minister and the fancy world the member for Central Nova lives in with his chauffeured car as a minister, he thinks people on CPP, OAS and GIS can afford $10,000 out of their cash flow for a heat pump. The Liberals' disconnection from reality knows no bounds.
Finally, in that interview, in response to the issue of the messenger, the messenger being the Minister of Environment who believes orange is a very nice colour to wear, the member for Avalon said, “No, he is not”, meaning he is not the right messenger. “No, he's not, and because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and his whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”
The member from Atlantic Canada's request was that they actually increase the payments to people so that the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which they claim, would cost more out of the treasury. The solution for cancer was to give us more cancer. It was not to say that they were going to get at the root of the disease, and the root of the disease, the cause of this inflation, is the carbon tax. That is what they should be getting rid of.
Bill C-49, which they are trying to use as a distraction from this reality, includes a process to review renewable energy projects in the ocean. I can inform this House that while the NDP-Liberal government claims to support renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada, the track record says that it actually does not do that. Over the decades, we have been trying in Nova Scotia to harness the enormous power of the Bay of Fundy tides to generate clean renewable electricity. There have been about half a dozen projects and hundreds of millions of private-sector dollars spent trying to figure out how to harness the Bay of Fundy tides. All but one project have failed. These are very large turbines. The projects that failed had these large turbines built and put on the floor of the Bay of Fundy. These turbines are about five storeys high.
For those members who do not know, the Bay of Fundy rises and falls every day by 52 feet. Twice each day, 160 billion tonnes of seawater flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy, which is more than the combined river flows of the world. The Bay of Fundy's tides transform the shorelines and tidal flats and expose the sea bottom as they flood into the bay and its harbours and estuaries. It is estimated that by 2040, the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy could contribute up to $1.7 billion to Nova Scotia's GDP and create up to 22,000 jobs. That is almost as many people as work in our number-one industry, which is the fishery.
Besides the money, how big is that in terms of energy? Three hundred megawatts of tidal energy can power a quarter of all Nova Scotia homes. That is just a fraction of the Bay of Fundy's 2,500-megawatt potential. That means Nova Scotia could become a net exporter of clean renewable tidal power.
However, how are we doing on that? With respect to every project, as I said, that has had these turbines placed on the bottom of the ocean floor, within about 48 hours they failed. The power of the tides had blown the turbines apart. However, people at an innovative company called Sustainable Marine Energy had a different idea: What if we floated those turbines on the top of the water instead of sinking them to the ocean floor? Guess what: It worked. The first project to consistently put power into Nova Scotia's power grid and to be paid for that power by Nova Scotia Power was successful. They were the first turbines not to be destroyed by the power of the Bay of Fundy tides.
One would think that the NDP-Liberal government would be thrilled and that the approval of such a successful green renewable-energy project would be fast-tracked, but that is not what happened. The Atlantic Liberals had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refuse to extend the permit for further piloting of the project. They used DFO to kill the project. That is important to Bill C-49 because of the power it would give DFO over all energy projects in Atlantic Canada. Those turbines are now out of the water. They are disassembled, the technology is shelved and the company is bankrupt. I say thanks to Atlantic Liberals and their commitment to renewable energy from our oceans. They talk the talk, but walk away when it comes time to move forward. It is typical of these Liberals. It is all about the input, without any results.
Therefore, this bill is not about approving projects in renewable ocean energy and oil and gas development to get the world off coal and dirty dictator oil. No, it would formalize a process designed to make sure these projects never see the light of day. What the NDP-Liberals have done here in this bill is put more gatekeepers in place to stop energy project development in Atlantic Canada. They imported four sections from the disastrous Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, into Bill C-49. With Bill C-69, the NDP-Liberals had said that more projects would get approved when they approved that. How many have been approved? There have been none. How many have been proposed? There have been none. It magically drove all capital out of Canada for energy projects.
Now, Bill C-49 would bring that process and that incredible success rate to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy projects. It would impose the same process, and imposing the same process would yield the same result. This bill would triple the current timelines for approval of offshore energy projects. Currently, a decision by the offshore regulatory board has 30 days for cabinet to agree or disagree. The Liberals would extend that in this bill.
Sections 28 and 137 give the federal cabinet the ability to end offshore drilling and renewable energy projects and also give the Minister of Fisheries a veto to propose developments in areas that the minister said that there may be a time in the future when there might be a marine protected area, MPA. It is not that there is a marine protected area, but maybe someday, if the minister thinks there might be one, and so, no, we cannot go there. It is sort of like Whac-a-Mole, which is what DFO has been doing on land with the rivers for any energy projects, and using the passage of one shrivelled up river as a reason to stop a project. Now, that same power would be given to DFO.
Why is that possible? An MPA is a part in the ocean. Fish swim and do not know the boundaries of the parts. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a few years ago met with the fishing groups in Nova Scotia and, in effect, said, “We're going to shut down 30% of the commercial fishery in Nova Scotia using MPAs. Work with us and you can pick which fisheries we shut down. Don't work with us, and we'll pick what is on.” The department uses its excessive power for other political purposes, and that is being imposed in the bill.
The bill brings the inefficiencies of the federal government's Impact Assessment Act into the bill as well. It adds sections 61, 62, 169 and 170 of the IAA where the federal minister has the power to impose conditions on authorizations. It also invokes section 64 of the IAA, which allows a federal minister to interfere in a project if they think it is in the public interest and create any condition, without limit, they think is necessary regardless of what the regulator decides.
Adding these Bill C-69 provisions to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy process extends the process through unlimited federal delays at any time, but at a minimum it is going to be over 1,600 days, which is four and a half years. That is the process that Bill C-69 sets out. It is a minimum of four and a half years for the approval of any project. That really efficient process, which has led to no projects being approved in western Canada, is now being imposed on Atlantic Canada. It is a recipe to end all our offshore energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
There are no provisions in the bill that require commercial fishing communities to be at the table when all of these projects are being considered. There has been no consultation with the fishing industry about these projects. Why is that important? It is because, in Atlantic Canada, that is our largest industry. To not require their involvement when most of these projects impact their ability to earn a living is a betrayal by Atlantic Canada MPs to the critically important industry they supposedly represent as members of Parliament and to the tens of thousands of people who work in it.
Finally, the current Atlantic accord treats Nova Scotia and Newfoundland differently. The Nova Scotia government has the ability to designate areas under provincial jurisdiction as energy projects within the bays of a province, or the “jaws of the land” as it is called. However, Newfoundland and Labrador does not have that power. I am shocked, frankly, and they should really give their heads a shake, a favourite saying of one of the MPs over there. Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MPs are okay with Nova Scotia having authorities that the Newfoundland and Labrador government does not. What else would we expect from these silent Liberals? Well, they are silent except for the member for Avalon who apparently is not comfortable in his own caucus any more.
It is time for Atlantic Liberals to get their heads out of the sand. It is time for them to speak up and recognize that the bill before us does for Atlantic energy projects what Bill C-69 did for energy projects in western Canada. Atlantic Liberal MPs need to join us in fixing these issues in committee when we propose solid and thoughtful amendments to ensure that projects get done and not stopped by Liberal gatekeepers.
It is also time for Atlantic Liberal MPs to stop voting with the NDP-Liberal government to increase the cost of everything with the carbon tax. It is about time they do that. Well, this week, they voted once again to impose a quadrupling of taxes on their own constituents. If they truly care about the economy, they will speak up for their region and axe the carbon tax and they will amend this bad bill so that projects can actually get approved.
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the Conservative member from the Atlantic continue to stand up and oppose good, clean jobs in Nova Scotia.
However, over the past two years, we have seen hurricanes that cost billions in damage, and fires in the member's riding that cost millions in damage. We have seen floods that have taken people's lives. Yet, the member seems to be saying that there is nothing to see here.
I have two questions for the member. First of all, does he agree with the provincial premier of Nova Scotia who said, “Climate change is real”, it is obvious, or will that member continue to bury his head in the sand? How many more states of emergency do we need in Nova Scotia before that member agrees that climate change is real and it is time to act?
Mr. Speaker, that is a little ironic coming from that member, who has voted 24 times to increase the cost of everything for all of his constituents.
On the issue of storms, we have had multiple storms every decade since the 1700s. He should look up the history. Yes, I had fires, man-made fires, that were started in my riding that were not started by climate change. They were started by individuals.
Perhaps he would like to explain to me why he disagrees with his colleague from Avalon and with the commitment from the minister of fisheries through the member that said she should correct the problem to make sure it is right. Will he stand up and agree with the Minister of Finance and the member for Avalon that the carbon tax needs to be fixed as it is hurting people in Atlantic Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about diseases and cancer in his speech. I would like to talk to him about that. Right now pollution is causing more cancer and more respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. The increase in pollution is also causing kidney problems. People are malnourished because of lower crop yields. All insect-borne diseases are on the rise.
Why then does the official opposition always put its foot on the brake when it comes to fighting pollution?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we believe pollution should be fought. We believe that that should be through technology, not through taxes that do not work.
The carbon tax has had zero impact in this country on the rate of carbon emissions. In fact, every year under the government, except for when it shut the entire economy down during COVID, carbon emissions have gone up. There is such a lack of knowledge about what is going on in the world. If we were at net-zero today, China would make that up in 56 days with its plan on expansion of coal plants, yet the government opposes us getting liquified natural gas to China so that the real emissions, a third of the world's emissions, could be reduced.
I would like to ask the members opposite why they hate reducing the coal production of China so much?
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we were in the House, and the member brought up the fact that wildfires in Canada were man-made and that storms have been hitting his region for hundreds of years, and I was shocked. The next day I was in Montreal at a climate march with young people who were asking for real action on climate change in this country. The member just double downed on that in his response to my Liberal colleague.
I have a serious question for him. Does he believe that climate change is real? Does he stand in the House and claim that climate change is not a factor in the hurricanes hitting his community, in the wildfires ravaging our communities and in the massive costs that are associated with that? Does he believe in climate change? Does he think it is real?
Mr. Speaker, here is another example of a Liberal-NDP coalition member who does not listen, does not listen to constituents and does not listen to what anyone in the House says. I have said many times, as has our leader and every other member, that of course climate change is real. However, the tax does not do anything to change that.
Leave it to a member of that costly coalition to not listen to what I said, which was that the fires in my riding were started by individuals. They were not started by climate change. She forgot those facts because they are inconvenient for her.
Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, let us just distinguish on the last point that was being made between who started a fire, whether it was a lightening strike or somebody who threw a cigarette butt out a window, and the fuel load in place that causes the wildfires. He knows this perfectly well because we have talked about this. We share many things, including a history in Nova Scotia.
The month of May in Nova Scotia is historically wet and cold. One could not start a forest fire there if one tried most years for many years. However, year after year, recently, and very recently because of climate change and global warming, the month of May in Nova Scotia has been hot and dry. This year, for the first time, we had extensive wildfires because of climate change. Regardless of who lit the match that hit the fuel load, it was hot and dry and ready to catch fire because of climate change.
As to the earlier points, the bill we are debating right now, Bill C-49, I am sure he will recall that it was our mutual friend, the late Pat Carney, who negotiated the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. The difference between tidal power and offshore wind is that offshore wind is a fully developed technology and ready to implement. We are still working to try to develop tidal power as it is not yet fully formed. It has not yet solved the threats to fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, our mutual friend, the late Hon. Pat Carney, did negotiate those deals, and from our perspective, I appreciate that the member thinks this was an unusual year. This was an El Niño year in North America, where we got less rain in the spring than we did last year or the year before. I expect, when we do not have an El Niño year again, that will change.
With regard to the issue of where wind power generation goes, of course we believe in tidal power and wind power. That is why I spoke for a great deal in my speech about the only project that has ever worked, which was the tidal power by Sustainable Marine Energy, which the government shut down. It, without damage, continued to return power to the Nova Scotia power grid, and they did not get paid for it, yet the government used this as an excuse to shut it down. DFO had given it four approvals and would not give it the fifth.
That approach to shutting down all energy projects, whether they be in oil and gas or on the renewable side of things, is the problem with the bill. It would put in place the terrible provisions of the IAA and Bill C-69 into this process.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets is a very kind person. As the member for Sydney—Victoria stands in the House and lectures Conservatives on our record, I would not even dignify it with an answer or acknowledge him until he stands in the House to apologize for his past comments toward indigenous women, which I find offensive, and I think many Canadians find them offensive. I would still like to hear an apology in the House from the member for Sydney—Victoria.
I would like to ask my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets a question. In British Columbia we have had a carbon tax for over a decade, yet we have seen increasing wildfires, incredible drought situations and increased emissions. Greenhouse gases have not gone down.
How high does the carbon tax have to be before we see the end to the climate events we are seeing and stop punishing Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the member for Sydney—Victoria, with his past comments, speaks for himself and his attitude toward women. That it is tolerated and has been rewarded with a parliamentary secretary spot is just a mystery to me.
That aside, on how high the carbon tax can go, I do not think there is any limit to how high the Liberals can put a tax, especially when it is ineffective. Their plan is to go to at least $270 a tonne. That means, in the short term, at least 61¢ a litre on gasoline, and in my riding, and in the hon. member's riding, there is no public transit.
My constituents do not have public transit. They have to drive everywhere. They have to drive to grocery stores. They have to drive their kids to school. They have to drive to hockey games. They have to drive to see their family and parents. That is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and it is caused by a tax that has no impact on the actual reduction of climate emissions.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my speech with some compliments and then move on to the criticisms.
This bill seeks to amend the 1986 agreement, which was not bad, because, even though the Supreme Court said that the federal government has jurisdiction over offshore issues, the federal government entered into an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador to work together in that regard. That is a good thing, and I want to point it out, because there are not many good things.
At that time, wind energy did not exist. Bill C‑49 will tie the federal government to all parliaments affected once they have entered into the new agreement, which affects the management of offshore wind projects. This bill could pave the way to real action in the area of renewable energy for the east coast. It makes improvements, such as the joint management of renewable offshore energy resources and the option of cancelling seabed oil concessions. It also promotes relations with indigenous peoples and their active involvement in the use of renewable energy. Those were the compliments.
Now, here are the criticisms. Bill C‑49 continues to maintain exploration and development mechanisms that lead to oil drilling. The government may have missed an opportunity here. It could have taken advantage of this opportunity to do something about that.
I want to start by reiterating one thing. When Canada makes international commitments about the environment, protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change, and the whole world sees the political decisions that have been made, it seems to me that at some point, action should follow. An emergency requires immediate action. Even young children understand that word. Given that we are in a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis, every decision made should align with Canada's commitments to fight climate change. We shall see about that.
In April 2019, the government announced a total ban on oil and gas work as well as mining, waste dumping and bottom trawling in all of Canada's marine protected areas. It was also urging other countries to do the same because, as we know, the government likes to lecture. It was telling other countries to do more to protect the environment. Marine refuges, however, were not included in that commitment. I like to say that words matter, and here is an example. Marine refuges were overlooked.
A little later, in 2020, Canada introduced new regulations that exempted future drilling from environmental assessment. The government's intention was to accelerate underwater oil drilling, and this after having lectured other countries.
The bill does not give more teeth to the regional assessments that, by the admission of the individuals in charge, are inadequate. Again, the government could have used Bill C‑49 to address that. I could talk about assessments at length because there are so many irregularities, but again the industry comes out ahead. There are no societal gains here.
In November 2020, the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board agreed to provide Building Product of Canada, or BP Canada, access to 264,500 hectares of ocean in exchange for a commitment to do exploration work worth $27 million. They say one thing and do another. This area is essential to marine biodiversity. It contains coral and sponges that other marine species use as spawning grounds or nurseries. Fisheries and Oceans Canada said so itself.
Meanwhile, with his customary emotional delivery, the Prime Minister promised to reaffirm Canada's commitment to protect 25% of our lands and waters by 2025 and to reach 30% by 2030. While BP Canada is making its little deals with the board, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has already started watering down his discourse. Regarding offshore drilling projects, he said at a committee meeting that the regulation will guarantee that all drilling projects comply with the strict standards of environmental protection and that the regulation establishes a clear and efficient process for assessing exploratory drilling projects.
In other words, the government supports such projects. Offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada.
The lighting on the oil platforms and infrastructure is harmful to birds because it causes confusion about places for them to rest, find food and so on.
The Liberal government is committing to marine conservation and claiming it is possible to accomplish that goal while promoting the development of the offshore oil industry. One can see why The Guardian and Oil Change International are saying that Canada is a climate hypocrite.
I would like to remind members that the purpose of exploration is extraction and development.
I want to briefly mention Bay du Nord. Many countries were shocked when the government made that announcement as it was preparing for the COP15 on biodiversity in Montreal. Perhaps that explains the comments of The Guardian and Oil Change International.
Equinor, the company that spearheaded the project, was the one that decided not to move forward with it, at least for the time being. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change who approved the Bay du Nord project used to be a committed environmental activist.
Regardless of the outcome of Bay du Nord, this first deep-water project, with the government's about-face, doublespeak, selective terminology and broken policy and climate commitments, Canada is being two-faced, acting like a good participant when, let us face it, under the changes set out in Bill C‑49 it is still quite likely that permits will be granted and offshore oil activities will be promoted.
Just days after introducing Bill C‑49, the government announced new drilling permits to double offshore oil production.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the devil is in the details. If the government wanted us to oppose this then it went about it the right way, in other words introduce a good bill and the next day announce more drilling. One might say it is sabotaging its own legislation. The government had an opportunity to show that it could let go of fossil fuel. There is still time for that. We are used to the greenwashing language that the Prime Minister has mastered.
That said, legislation paving the way for renewable energy in this region of Canada would be good. I repeat: Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is imperative. Just like western Canada, the Maritimes need a helping hand to do that. In both regions, the environment and biodiversity are under attack.
Our caucus has serious doubts about the probity of the commitments set out in Bill C‑49. What better ruse could there be than to slip poison into an innocent-looking treat that everyone likes? We will be watchful.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives across the way talk about listening. I appreciate the comments the member has put forward, but I want to focus on giving a comment that she can respond to.
When we look at the support for this legislation, Premier Andrew Furey has said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in a green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge other federal parties to do the same.”
We can talk about one province affected by this, and in fact, all of Atlantic Canada. There is a very powerful message here. If one supports the Atlantic region and potential economic and opportunities in the future, why would the Conservatives not support legislation of this nature?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I must say that my hon. colleague is always present and always has questions. I am always amazed. Sometimes I wonder if he ever sleeps because he must be studying every bill.
Why are the Conservatives against this? Every time we talk about climate change, the Conservatives are against it. We always wonder if they believe in fighting climate change. They do not make the connection between health and climate change; they do not tie these two things together, when it is very important.
However, coming back to Bill C‑49, there are rules for future offshore wind projects, but the government wants to pursue oil projects. We take issue with the government saying one thing and doing another. It is typical of the Liberal government.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was entirely too charitable to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, because I heard him say that this year was just an unusual year and we will go back to normal soon. What we have is an example of a Conservative front-bencher, who obviously enjoys the favour of the Conservative leader, denying climate change in this very chamber, denying the evidence of fires and denying the evidence of the floods that took place in Nova Scotia.
I wonder if the member would like to revise her evaluation of the climate-denying Conservatives.
[Translation]
Before moving on to the answer, the hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member who just spoke to provide what he is speaking about. I think he is reiterating a false narrative. There is no—
[Translation]
I must respectfully interrupt my hon. colleague. In the Speaker's opinion, the member for Calgary Centre's remarks are a point of debate in the House. He will have an opportunity to take part in the debate and ask his questions.
Did I misunderstand? Does the hon. member for Calgary Centre want to clarify his remarks?
[English]
I interrupted, Mr. Speaker, because what the member was saying is a gross misstatement about those in the front row of this party. If the member is going to put that out there and is going to state it in Hansard, it had better show up, as opposed to being complete deceit to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to respect the rules of the House and check into the facts of what the member is stating.
[Translation]
I thank my hon. colleague for his comments.
After verifying with the table officer, this is a point of debate. The hon. member or his colleagues will have the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Without further delay, the hon. member for Repentigny has the floor to answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois often finds that, when either the Conservatives or the government members open their mouths, all we hear are speeches from oil companies.
When I think about Bill C‑49, what comes to mind is an image of oil wells with wind turbines on top them. The content of this bill looks a little bit like that. This bill could be worthwhile, but some of the decisions go completely against combatting climate change and keeping Canada's international commitments.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleagues, Conservatives believe in climate change. We just do not believe that this carbon tax is doing anything to fight the climate crisis we are facing. It is punishing Canadians.
If the Liberals do not want to believe me, perhaps they will believe a Liberal MP from Newfoundland, the member for Avalon, who stood up, finally, and said:
I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit. Everywhere I go people come up to me and say, “We're losing faith in the Liberal Party.”
...They can’t afford to heat their homes and that’s hard to hear from especially seniors who live alone and tell me that they go around their house in the spring and winter time with a blanket wrapped around them....
Would our hon. colleague please comment on that? A Liberal MP is finally standing up and saying the carbon tax is punishing Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are back to debating the carbon tax. I would just like to remind everyone that it does not apply in Quebec.
In fact, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was a minister in Jean Charest's Quebec government when the carbon exchange was created. She knows full well that it does not apply in Quebec.
I guess the member does not have enough influence in her caucus.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair today.
I appreciate having the chance to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-49. I would like to mention that as I deliver my comments I do so on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the fact that the other side likes to downplay and ignore climate change. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I can tell members that my constituents have faced some of the worst impacts of fires and floods, which have been exacerbated by climate change. From winter storms taking down power lines in Quebec to storms battering our coasts, the fact is that the climate crisis is a serious issue that requires serious responses. Today, we are here to talk about a plan to help expand job-creating climate action in Atlantic Canada, which is certainly a region that has seen no shortage of climate impacts.
Let us take Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia’s workers and their families have been through not one, not two, but three climate disasters in the last 13 months: hurricane Fiona, the wildfires in the Halifax Regional Municipality and Shelburne County, and the flash flooding that tragically led to the deaths of four Nova Scotians, including three children. It is time to stand behind the people of Nova Scotia and all of Atlantic Canada as we move forward with opportunities that will support the fight against climate change and benefit the region’s long-term economic future.
Developing the offshore renewable energy industry should be a priority for all members of Parliament, which is precisely why I am here today as a member of Parliament from British Columbia. Enabling the offshore renewables industry to move forward will not only help the people who live and work in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, but also help Canada as a whole in the effort to do the following: help reduce emissions and meet emissions targets; create a clean, reliable and affordable grid; create good-paying sustainable jobs; enhance Canada's ability to compete in the global low-carbon economy across all sectors; and, further grow our economy today.
It is clear that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador’s workforces are ready to move forward with these offshore opportunities. The citizens of these provinces have the skills we need, and they bring generations of experience in a range of marine industries to the table. Like British Columbians, our east coast colleagues are talented in other areas that are expected to benefit the offshore renewable energy industry, including shipbuilding, aquaculture, defence, research and ocean technology.
My Atlantic colleagues have been clear when they have spoken in this chamber. These provinces, and the livelihoods of all who call them home, have been shaped by the sea, providing rich maritime heritage and a passion for the environment, both of which make offshore wind and other renewable energy projects a natural fit for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Of course, they also benefit from the geography and energy context that makes these projects so attractive. Nova Scotia’s current energy mix means that affordable and reliable offshore wind power will support lowering prices for ratepayers, and as Newfoundland and Labrador uses its hydro capacity to support the electrification of buildings, industry and transportation, more and more power will be needed in the future. This is true across the country, yet the offshore potential of Atlantic Canada is one of the greatest on earth. Unlocking this potential is a critical part of achieving our commitments to the global fight against climate change.
Members on the other side like to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the climate crisis, as we see time and again in this place. Our side knows that ambitious action provides us with an opportunity to show the world that Canada is a reliable partner and leader in solving the great challenge of our era in a manner that supports the creation of sustainable jobs. To ensure we honour our commitments to Canadians and the world, and to ensure our economy does not surrender opportunity to our competitors as the rest of the world races towards net zero, we need to move quickly. That urgency brings us to the business before us today, and our provincial counterparts agree that we must move quickly.
Nova Scotia, for instance, has stated that coal-fired power plants are going to become a thing of the past by 2030, and that 80% of the province’s power will, by then, come from clean energy. That is only six years away. Nova Scotia’s Progressive Conservative government and citizens are asking for this House to get this bill passed so they can start building the renewable energy they need.
Atlantic Canadians, in particular, are calling on the Conservative Party to end its campaign of climate action obstruction and join us in passing this bill. Everyone is asking the Conservative Party to stop blocking jobs, investments and the renewable energy that will power their homes and businesses. The question is whether or not the leader of the Conservative Party will take his head out of the sand and heed this call.
Make no mistake. We will advance this legislation and deliver for Atlantic Canada either way. Doing so makes sense from both an environmental and economic perspective.
The potential for job creation and environmental benefits in renewable energy is so strong in Nova Scotia that the provincial government has already made several significant moves toward making offshore renewable energy projects a reality in preparation for this bill’s passing. Nova Scotia has joined the federal government in carrying out the regional assessment on offshore wind that is currently under way. Right now, the regional assessment committee is hosting public open houses to provide information on the process itself and get feedback on potential project locations.
Nova Scotia also released the first module of their offshore wind road map in June, which clearly delineates its vision for offshore wind energy and the regulatory pathway and timelines for project development. The road map provides certainty for businesses looking to invest, as well as giving a line of sight on what is coming for stakeholders, indigenous groups and other interested parties. The road map also outlines the seabed leasing opportunities, noting that access to seabed rights that are solely under the province’s jurisdiction could be available for commercial projects as early as next year.
For this to happen, Bill C-49 needs to pass quickly through this chamber. I again encourage my Conservative colleagues to listen to the people of Atlantic Canada, as well as both the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Progressive Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia. I encourage them to reverse their thoughtless and ideological position and vote in favour of this common-sense bill. Bill C-49 affords the House the opportunity to deliver good sustainable jobs, good renewable energy projects and major economic opportunities for all while combatting climate change.
The two boards, the C-NLOPB and the CNSOPB, which has held the provinces’ offshore energy industry accountable for many years, are the natural choice to take on an expanded mandate for the regulation of the provinces’ offshore energy projects. It is a perfect fit. The offshore board already ensures that licensed project operators adhere to offshore regulations. It engages and consults with stakeholders, indigenous groups and the public to get feedback on potential and existing projects. It has years of experience in offshore safety and environmental protection and holds operators to account through the boards’ comprehensive compliance and enforcement activities.
The boards are also an excellent collaborator. They have put several agreements and memoranda of understanding in place with other organizations and agencies to make it easier for them to share information, expertise and resources with each other and coordinate their initiatives. This includes agreements with the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canada Energy Regulator, Natural Resources Canada, the Transportation Safety Board and more. With these many agreements already in place, the offshore boards are a clear and logical choice for overseeing the development of offshore wind projects, as well as other renewable energy projects off the shores of Nova Scotia.
Economically, this bill makes good financial sense. We have heard that it is expected that as much as $1 trillion will be invested in offshore wind globally by 2040. That investment is already starting to flow to offshore markets around the world. This is why it is so urgent that the Conservatives end their opposition to these jobs and investments so that all members of Parliament can come together to get Bill C-49 passed.
We need to seize this massive economic opportunity, not just for Atlantic Canada but for all of Canada. This bill is key to ensuring that our country is a leader in the global race to net-zero. All members of all parties of all regions should not delay this bill any further, or else we will throw away the opportunity to attract investment, the opportunity to build a world-class offshore wind industry and the opportunity to create the thousands and thousands of jobs associated with it.
Bill C-49 makes sense for Atlantic Canada’s workforce, and Canada more broadly. When Canada builds major new industries, Canadians from across the country contribute and benefit. The benefits of this economic activity help to spur waves of labour development, and that is critical to the economic well-being of Canada as a whole, along with the restoration of many coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
The world needs Canadian clean energy and technologies in order to advance the fight against climate change and access long-term energy security. When Chancellor Scholz came to Newfoundland and Labrador last summer, he made it clear that Germany is looking to buy clean Canadian hydrogen made from offshore wind.
I am happy to take questions about Bill C-49, a very important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City indicated that he stands behind the people of Atlantic Canada. Is he also prepared to say that he stands behind his colleague from Avalon, who represents those people in the House, when he answered a question last night?
Last night, he was asked if the Minister of Environment was “the right messenger for that part of the country on this”. The member responded, “No, he's not, because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and this whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it all overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”
Will the member stand with his colleague on behalf of the people in Canada who are struggling under the carbon tax system? Will they support us in removing it from the backs of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it is a very unfortunate situation that we have the official opposition still denying that climate change is upon us.
We need to take action. There is a cost to not dealing with climate—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in no way could the question I just asked the member be interpreted as to say that I do not support climate change and the need for Canadians to—
That is not a point of order, but it is a good point, nonetheless.
The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply offer that, if we are going to have these inflammatory questions, we should be able to address them. That is what I am doing. I am saying that climate change is real. It is happening, and there is a cost to the inaction of not dealing with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a cost associated with inaction. I get the impression that certain things have been included in this bill simply to make us believe that they really want to tackle climate change. For example, the bill provides for the withdrawal of petroleum exploration licences.
However, seeing that the government is allowing petroleum production to double in northern Newfoundland, does my colleague get the impression that the government could one day use what is in the bill to prevent potential projects from moving forward?
Then again, does he think that it is just there to make this bill easier to swallow, given the potential effect it will have on climate change?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 is a clear demonstration of our government's commitment to that transition to clean energy. We will have, for the short term, continued extraction of carbon-based fuels in our country. Bill C-49 would be a very important way of enabling the offshore energy boards to bring in clean energy, such as wind. I talked in my speech about how important this is for sustainable jobs and the economy, and to help us tap into what is needed in the world right now to decarbonize our economy.
I do not necessarily agree with my colleague's premise, but I think this is an important step in making sure that clean energy is available in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia for clean energy projects.
Mr. Speaker, since 2019, we have seen net profits of the oil and gas sector go up by over 1,000% and the refining sector by 40%, and we know the product they make is directly contributing to climate change, causing billions of dollars in damage and great harm to our agricultural sector. The Conservatives want us to believe a magical fairytale that it is somehow the carbon tax's fault.
Would my hon. friend agree that this is a fundamentally unserious party when it comes to dealing with the causes of climate change and inflation? It is about time they got off their unicorn and started being level with Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from British Columbia asked an excellent question. I could not have said it any better myself. I think we need all parties to come together in the House to work on advancing clean energy and the transition to decarbonize our economy.
Bill C-49 is a clear demonstration of the east coast's commitment to that transition. The provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, are clearly asking for this. It is up to the House to provide this enabling legislation so provincial legislation can follow, and projects that are already being studied can get developed. It is a very important piece of legislation. I ask all parties to come together quickly to get this legislation through the House.
Mr. Speaker, as with most Liberal legislation, when it comes to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the Atlantic accord, the devil is always in the details. This bill is a framework for the development of offshore wind energy in Atlantic Canada, and it is necessary, but it needs to be done right.
In my speech today, I will address concerns brought to me by the fishing industry, in my role as shadow minister for Fisheries and Oceans, and by representatives and stakeholders in the oil and gas industry. As I am the only MP from Newfoundland and Labrador who has the freedom to address the shortcomings of Bill C-49, stakeholders from these industries have put their faith in me to address their concerns on the floor of the House.
I will start with what I have heard from representatives of seven fish harvester organizations, which are mainly in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as throughout Atlantic Canada. The main concern raised by stakeholders is the lack of detail on the consultation process required with their industry.
Most in the industry, including those who sat in on an information session on September 12 by the committee for the regional assessment of offshore wind development in Newfoundland and Labrador, are concerned about the process. Lobster fishermen I met with in Nova Scotia are concerned with how offshore wind energy will impact their ability to fish.
The Liberal government, which is heavily influenced by hard-core environmentalists who often proclaim themselves to be stakeholders, does not have a good track record when it comes to setting aside areas where fishing activity is no longer permitted or where new restrictions are put in place.
The fishing industry is not against development of offshore wind energy. However, from its point of view, Bill C-49 pays lip service to consultations.
Bill C-49—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Copyright Act
moved that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in this House today to speak on my private member’s bill, Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act by allowing circumvention solely for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair of a product with technological protection measures, TPMs.
In the world we live in today, our society is surrounded by an Internet of things, where most products are becoming more advanced through innovations and most products we purchase have some type of computer program built into them. Current technologies have made convenient impacts to our daily lives. However, they have also indirectly made the repair process difficult. Certain products that are protected by TPMs, often known as digital locks, might be difficult to circumvent and legally repair.
That is the reason it is important to enact this legislation. Bill C-244 is a crucial step toward the implementation of a right-to-repair framework on federal, provincial and territorial levels. This bill would contribute to our effort toward a more sustainable future by reducing planned obsolescence and reducing waste to be buried. Most importantly, this bill would put the right to repair back in the hands of consumers in Canada, allowing consumers to choose the best options for them without worrying about any legal consequences.
By amending the Copyright Act, Bill C-244 would pave the way for all levels of government to develop legislation on a right-to-repair framework. We have seen examples in Ontario and Quebec, where proposed policies on developing a right-to-repair framework did not succeed partly because of the Copyright Act. That is why Bill C-244 is critical to a right-to-repair policy reform in Canada, as this bill would carve out an exception for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining and repairing products with an embedded computer program, without imposing significant penalties for unlawful circumvention.
Most products being offered and purchased today are made with planned obsolescence, limiting the lifespan of a product, and sometimes the cost to repair the broken product can cost more than purchasing a new replacement, which sometimes is better or with more upgrades. Also, the time it takes to repair, or simply wait for parts, can discourage consumers from choosing to repair over buying something new. As a result, more waste is in our landfills and more emissions and carbon footprint are generated from the process of manufacturing, transporting, disposing and much more.
With the implementation of Bill C-244, repairing a broken product would no longer be restricted with the amended Copyright Act. The circumvention of the TPMs would be legally allowed only for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair. It would grant consumers the right to repair and more control over their own purchases, allowing a product to extend its lifespan, reducing and conserving resources by promoting a more sustainable approach to manufacturing and consumption. During this challenging time in an affordability crisis, Bill C-244 can actually help consumers save money.
By reducing their dependence on costly authorized repair services and through the right to repair, broken or malfunctioning products are more likely to be repaired instead of being discarded, reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills and building a more environmentally sustainable society. Not only that, the right-to-repair movement can also foster a healthy competition among repair service providers, leading to more competitive and affordable repair options. This would not only support the growth in local small businesses, but promote job creation within the repair industry, growing our local economies.
These are reasons that Bill C-244 is important legislation toward the right to repair. This bill would help lead Canada into a more sustainable future and become a strong champion for consumer rights. This bill is good legislation that is meant for all consumers across Canada.
If Bill C-244 becomes law, it will allow federal, provincial and territorial governments to implement further legislation on developing a right-to-repair framework across Canada. It will empower all of us as lawmakers to further our joint effort in developing good policies that lead to sustainable consumerism.
Please allow me to extend my invitation to all consumers across Canada to join this collective effort to build a more sustainable and climate-resilient future, especially for our future generations. Every Canadian can contribute by choosing repair over a new purchase and sustainability over landfills, by protecting our environment and by supporting communities impacted by climate change from coast to coast to coast.
The Copyright Act, as it stands today, restricts the circumvention of TPMs that protect copyrighted content, making any circumventions illegal. Copyright exists to protect intellectual property and the original work of its creator, not to prevent repairs to copyrighted products, because nothing is being copied or distributed.
TPMs were originally created to encourage artists and creators to share their work in digital form without worrying that their work was being copied. As we advance into this modern world with the Internet of things, many products are embedded with a chip or some type of computer program. Manufacturers will use TPMs to protect the software incorporated within products, preventing modification of the original work. What I have been hearing is that some manufacturers use TPMs to control and limit the use of a product.
TPMs can also restrict access to the basic information needed for diagnosis, maintenance or repair, or can prevent repairs from happening at all. This restriction limits consumers' right to repair, and in many cases, only manufacturers or authorized repair services have the tools and parts to bypass these restrictions.
The intention of the Copyright Act was not to prevent Canadians from repairing products with embedded software. Copyright-protected content, in certain ways, is being used as a barrier to Canadians who want to repair their products. Bill C-244 would remove that barrier by creating a new exemption permitting the circumvention of TPMs for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair so that the Copyright Act does not prevent Canadians from repairing the products they own or use. The impacts of this bill would be tremendous.
Some witnesses at the standing committee raised concerns over health and safety, cybersecurity and environmental risks that may result from the circumvention of TPMs and the repair of products. They asked for the exclusion of certain categories of products from the application of Bill C-244. I sincerely appreciate that these industry representatives voiced their concern during the study of this bill for our legislative process.
The Copyright Act is a law of general application, the purpose of which is to grant exclusive rights over creative works. It is more desirable that these concerns be addressed in regimes that already regulate those categories of products. Bill C-244 would not prevent these regimes from regulating repairs or addressing issues that may arise in the repair of certain products.
As an example, I was honoured to have the opportunity to meet with some representatives from one of the world's leading medical technology industries. They shared with me that this amendment to the Copyright Act might create a grey area that would legally allow someone to fix medical equipment without oversight. However, Bill C-244 would not override any regulation, such as by Health Canada in this case on medical equipment. Only licensed technicians with relevant training and experience could repair broken or malfunctioning medical equipment, while meeting the standards set out by Health Canada.
How I see this bill impact this industry, and many other industries, is by enacting future right to repair legislation on allowing certified technicians in hospitals and other industries to have access to repair manuals and parts available, which will make a difference as serious as between life and death.
I also had the pleasure of hearing from representatives from the automotive industry. They shared with me that this bill will encourage fair play, create competition and make repair more accessible for Canadians. With Bill C-244, Canadians would be able to drive up to a local repair shop and not be restricted to a dealer's authorized repair shop to have their vehicle serviced and repaired. What we need is to provide the tools for technicians at repair shops to access the data of vehicles that TPMs limit. With this access, technicians can provide quality services for diagnosis, maintenance and repair to vehicle owners.
Over this summer, I travelled to our Prairie provinces. For the first time, I was able to see, in person, the huge combines and tractors that can harvest thousands of acres. It was truly remarkable and just amazing. I had the pleasure of speaking with farmers who shared with me that many farmlands are generationally owned through family legacy. It is this time of the year, the harvesting crop year, that our Prairie farmers are busy at work. They are the hard-working Canadians who help put food on our table and bring the agriculture and agri-food sector of Canada to the international stage. Yet, the harvesting season can vary significantly from year to year, depending on changes in weather pattern. With climate change, we have seen the devastating impacts of droughts, flooding, wildfires and other extreme weather events across Canada. These unexpected conditions can cause severe damage to the yield each year.
For farmers in a more remote area, if their equipment breaks down during the midst of harvesting, travelling to a nearby town can take hours, and that is not even saying how long it would take to go to the nearest authorized dealer for service and repair. During the busy harvesting season, parts for repair can be in demand and not readily available. Let us give our farmers the option to a more accessible right to repair.
I stand in this chamber to wish our farmers across Canada a great harvesting season this year and every year ahead.
I would like to ask every Canadian: Would it not be better if consumers could have the right to repair on products they purchase and own?
With that, I want to thank the House administration for the thorough work and support to all parliamentarians on the work we do in this chamber. I give special thanks to the Library of Parliament and the Clerk of the House.
I would also like to thank the hon. member for Cambridge for all his hard work tabling this bill in the last Parliament and for seconding Bill C-244 during its second reading. As well, I thank the honourable member for Vancouver Granville for seconding my private member's bill at this third reading stage. I also want to take this opportunity to wish him an early happy birthday.
I thank all the witnesses for presenting their views and providing their input and comments on this bill. I also want to thank every hon. member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for their thoughtful input and study on this bill.
To the stakeholders across Canada who took the time to share their input with me, I thank them for their continued support and championship for the right to repair.
Most importantly, I want to thank all my constituents and the people of Richmond Centre. Without their trust and support, I would not have the privilege to table this important bill.
It is with great gratitude and appreciation to colleagues from all parties and the House that I was able to rise today to speak on my private member’s bill.
Mr. Speaker, to my fellow British Columbian across the way, congratulations for making it this far.
I wanted to ask the hon. member about one thing. There is a missing component to his right to repair, and that is not the member's fault. The Copyright Act can be changed to allow for someone to move around a technology protection measure. That is something we can clearly do in this place. However, it is the provinces that have jurisdiction over contract law, specifically for warranties.
Many of the companies that say they do not want to allow for the circumvention of a TPM through the Copyright Act could simply say they are not going to honour a warranty. They could say that if someone uses right to repair through the Copyright Act, they will simply disallow any warranties or any other contracts if there is an agreement for ongoing service.
What will the member do knowing this? How is he approaching the provinces? Has he? I would like to know, because lots of consumers have put great faith in the idea that this bill will change everything. However, large companies that do not want to co-operate with this new copyright change could simply change their tactics and update their user agreements or contracts.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to work together and protect consumers' right to repair. That is why it is very important for us to work with all levels of government to provide or review more legislation that could impact consumers and address concerns raised by constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to welcome my colleague from Richmond Centre at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology and to go over this type of bill that allows us, as consumers, to be better protected. That is essential.
Let us come back to the issue of repair. In the remote region where I am from, Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, we do not all have access to big cities. However, this bill addresses the fundamental issue of consumer protection.
The National Assembly of Quebec recently adopted Bill 29 to fight against planned obsolescence and to avoid people purchasing “lemons”, for example.
Does my colleague think that the bill adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec makes sense and does he think it will complement his bill? Are we making progress today when it comes to consumer rights?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not speak good French, so I will respond in English.
It is very important for us to address these concerns. Across Canada, right now we are limited in our ability to repair because the Copyright Act has not been amended. In order for us to look at further legislation, there are discussions to have with our communities, stakeholders and constituents across Canada.
It is important for us to address this. That is why, before we move to next steps, we must ensure that the circumvention for the sole purpose of right to repair has happened.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's bill. The interventions at committee were very interesting.
I had a piece of legislation on the automotive after-market come through this place, and I want to give credit to Tony Clement, who was the minister of industry at that time. We settled on doing a voluntary agreement. My bill was going to the Senate with the votes, and then the after-market sector said it would try a voluntary position if we withdrew the bill. We did that and it was created.
We have a voluntary agreement in place right now, but it has a lot of issues. We really need to move the proper legislation.
Would my colleague like to respond to that? We have a voluntary automotive after-market right to repair in place, but it is not sufficient right now. Does the hon. member agree that we need to get it into proper legislation?
Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I thank the member for the work he has done for the automotive industry.
After speaking to several representatives from the automotive industry, I know they look forward to this bill passing. In order for them to make sure that all manufacturers are on board with the right to repair legislation, they would have to provide certain instruction manuals and make parts available so that consumers have the choice to make a repair when that time comes.
It is important for us to continue this dialogue and conversation to make sure that industries, not just in the automotive sector but across Canada, are able to benefit from the right to repair.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak at third reading of this important legislation, Bill C-244, otherwise known as the right to repair bill, which was introduced by the member for Richmond Centre.
Conservatives support this legislation and are happy to see its return at third reading. It is not common in the House to find legislation that all parties can come together on and, for the most part, we agree on the principles of the bill, so I send my congratulations to the member.
Bill C-244 seeks to amend the Copyright Act to allow individuals and businesses to repair a technology with copyright material without infringing on the rights set out in the Copyright Act. When someone has a copyright for a work they created, the Copyright Act enables that creator to be the sole entity to reap the financial rewards from that creation for a set period of time. This is a good thing. Exclusive financial rewards of invention and creation is what drives progress in our society.
These days, everything includes software: cars, fridges, phones, and any manufactured equipment. All software, therefore, in those devices and things that we utilize day to day have copyright protection. Manufactured goods now have proprietary designs and structures, along with specialized tools to repair these goods. They are designed that way. Why is that? It is because repair and maintenance of manufactured goods is as profitable or more profitable than the sale of the good itself.
Copyright is being used now, in my view, as an anti-competitive tool to keep the customer tied to the manufacturer and unable to use less expensive providers of repair and maintenance. This is causing great frustration for the consumer. Only the car dealer, not one's local garage, can repair one's car. Only the manufacturer can repair farm equipment because the specialized tools and codes are only available from an authorized dealer.
The Copyright Act would be amended by this bill to provide for instances when the rights of copyright can be infringed upon, or what is known as circumvention. In other words, this bill would allow individuals or small businesses to repair technologies themselves without fear of repercussions.
Many of my Conservative colleagues from the Prairies have previously spoken about how this legislation would impact our agricultural sector in particular. Today, I would like my comments to also focus on this critical industry, which provides the food we eat.
For those who are unfamiliar, farmers are often required to pay enormous costs upfront to buy and maintain the equipment they use in operating a farm. These costs are often in the millions and include purchasing the land, the appropriate seed and fertilizer, and the equipment necessary to harvest and plant a crop. Often, large tractors, such as those from John Deere, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as do the attachment pieces that go with them. These tractors contain complex electrical systems that require specific tools to access them, which are protected by Canada's robust copyright laws.
As is the case in every industry, the equipment farmers use often breaks down and requires either repair or a complete replacement, given enough time. This breakdown usually happens at the worst time, when speed of repair is essential. At one time, this was never a big issue.
Farmers have historically been makeshift mechanics. They have been able and expected to demonstrate that, if some engine or computer system was not working, they could find a way to fix it, jury-rig it, to get the repair done immediately so they could continue with their essential work. That was especially important, given how the harvesting season typically last only a few weeks and time lost waiting for an authorized repairman to fix an engine could cost a business their annual livelihood.
As technology has progressed and farming has become more computerized over the past two decades, including some equipment now that is self-driving in harvesting and planting, the ability to repair equipment has increasingly become more and more difficult for our farmers. Today, farmers rely heavily on technology to assist them in their harvest. These technologies can sometimes cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and have these complex systems.
For farmers, this means that if a copyrighted computer system or engine for a large tractor breaks down, they cannot simply call a local repairman or fix it themselves. Instead, they are required to call a technician from the manufacturing company or an authorized dealer to come out and fix that specific piece of equipment. This method is very taxing on owners.
Company technicians can sometimes take anywhere from hours to days, even a week or two, to arrive to conduct the necessary repair. When they finally arrive, owners are sometimes presented with an unusually high repair bill. The delay has caused lots of crop harvesting time to be lost, where every day lost is a potential loss in farm income.
My Conservative colleague from Provencher in Manitoba spoke in second reading on this bill with great knowledge and depth about the high level of investment required to keep some of this equipment and the cost associated with replacing a combine for a farmer. He talked about the millions that this costs.
This way of going about these repairs, in my view, is anti-competitive; it is harmful to farmers, small businesses and consumers. Property owners ought to be allowed to repair the piece of equipment they have purchased in the most economical way possible. They should be able to have a variety of resources at their disposal when fixing equipment, not just the pre-approved, monopolistic authorized agent from the manufacturer.
The Copyright Act has become a government-legislated gatekeeper harming consumer choice. It was not intended to be this way.
As I mentioned previously, being able to reap the financial rewards of one's own invention and creation is essential, but when copyright moves into the territory of using these rights as a way to prevent competition and control the whole repair and maintenance ecosystem, then it becomes anti-competitive and monopolistic. It then needs to be fixed, repaired and modernized to reflect the modern state of equipment that we all buy.
Even one’s stove and fridge now have these monopolistic design features in both their software and their hardware. Trying to get repairs done with a computerized fridge is next to impossible. We are soon going to see the world of artificial intelligence placed into these goods that we buy, which will make these things more complex.
This bill seems to have unanimous support from the House for this reason. The legislation seeks to address this issue by ensuring that not all repairs remain proprietary, allowing a diversity of responses when individuals are seeking to repair their equipment. In other words, it would allow competition.
Conservatives look forward to seeing this legislation move forward to the other place. We understand that there would be positive impacts for our rural communities. These issues also apply in my most important industry, the fishery.
I want to thank my colleague for reintroducing this bill. Our party looks forward to seeing how this legislation moves through and is improved in the other place.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that is vital to residents of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Quebec, and that is Bill C‑244, which was introduced by the hon. member for Richmond Centre.
Bill C‑244 amends the Copyright Act in order to allow a person to circumvent a technological protection measure, or TPM, if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product.
This bill was examined at almost the same time as Bill C‑294 on interoperability. What is interesting is that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was able to look at the issue from different angles and improve the bill's content to allow for the right to repair, to fight waste and to better protect the jobs of repair people, mechanics and technicians in the regions.
Over the past few years, it has become a lot more complicated to repair objects. Our vehicles are turning into motorized computers, and access to programming codes is needed to diagnose problems with them. Unfortunately, more and more manufacturers are refusing to share those codes or are charging independent mechanics exorbitant fees to get them, supposedly for security reasons. This situation is jeopardizing these small businesses and threatening their survival.
How are we to manage when our brand new smart phones get a cracked screen or some other defect? What do we do when our high-end, front-loading washing machine suddenly stops working? What about our three-year-old farm machinery in need of repair?
Let us consider Apple's policy on repairing its products, for example. All Apple products must be repaired at Apple stores, if the parts are available.
By patenting the majority of these parts, Apple holds on to its monopoly, while the electronic locks created by its operating software, protected under the Copyright Act, make counterfeiting liable to prosecution. For a resident of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the situation is even more troublesome considering that the region has no Apple store. To get the service they are entitled to as consumers, these residents have to ship their product by mail or travel more than 600 kilometres to a large urban centre. Incidentally, the situation is practically the same for passports. That needs to change.
Manufacturers are increasingly choosing the answer for us: toss it out and buy a new one. Tight grips on replacement parts, restrictive design, the use of digital locks and other legal protections have all contributed to the difficulty in repairing and maintaining the increasingly high-tech things that surround us.
Bill C-244 presents a solution to the calls from many individuals who support the right to repair in Quebec. Their message is consistent: The government must make legislative changes that will give us both the right and the ability to repair the objects we own without violating intellectual property laws and other laws.
Although the purpose of the Copyright Act is to protect creators and intellectual property, the way companies have been using it to impede repairs over the last few decades is harmful to society as a whole. It impedes the second-hand market and harms small businesses specializing in repairs.
By supporting this bill, the Bloc Québécois is also supporting Quebec's small businesses that are committed to becoming repair centres, mechanics, computer specialists and artisans who have acquired the skills to repair our everyday products. This industry plays a key role in our energy transition and supports jobs throughout Quebec. Even though repair people are becoming increasingly rare in our communities, this bill lends direct support to their work. It will provide a living for many Quebeckers.
It is not just consumer electronics that are under the microscope. The bill also targets industrial equipment, agricultural equipment, medical devices, electric cars and many other machines that are becoming notoriously difficult for independent technicians to repair and maintain. This increases businesses' operational costs, curtails market competition and discourages follow-on innovation.
The costs of our increasing inability to repair things go beyond pocketbook issues. It is imperative that we consider the environmental impact as well. My colleague from Repentigny will be happy to hear me mention this. The manufacture of new devices generates considerable electronic waste and consumes precious resources. It is therefore crucial to give consumers the right to repair their products. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a new law in Quebec that is along the same lines as this one. It reminds manufacturers that they have a role to play in this equation.
Quebec has passed a new law on planned obsolescence. We applaud the leadership of the Quebec National Assembly, which recently passed this legislation to ensure that these products operate properly and to prevent the sale of seriously defective vehicles, what we call lemons.
Let me get back to the shameful waste of raw materials. Extraction of raw materials, use of rare earth metals, lead soldering, shipping and packaging are just a few examples of the ecological toll imposed by the short lifespan of many modern devices and equipment. Electronics waste is now globally among the fastest-growing types of waste, increasing at a rate of 3% to 4% each year. As the global microchip shortage reveals, ostensibly every industry is now the electronics industry. The failure of one electronic part often renders things inoperative, making them all the more likely to end up in a landfill prematurely.
I strongly recommended to my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we study the metals, plastics and electronics recycling ecosystems from a circular economy perspective, because the critical minerals in these electronics are important. We must stop them from ending up in landfills. This study will resume once our consideration of Bill C-27 is complete.
We need to address this shameful waste of resources to reduce our tonne of garbage. Quebeckers have had enough. I urge all parliamentarians to support this bill. By voting in favour of this bill, we are demonstrating our commitment to our local businesses, we are contributing to the fight against waste and we are meeting a fundamental need to repair for all our constituents. By supporting this bill, we are sending a strong, united message about our determination to promote a more sustainable and accessible future for all. This is an opportunity for us, as legislators, to make a positive difference in the lives of our constituents and to work in favour of an economy that is more environmentally friendly.
Let us make sure that the right to repair becomes a reality for everyone.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in this chamber on the right to repair. I thank the member for introducing Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, diagnosis, maintenance and repair, also known as the right to repair act. I congratulate the member for Richmond Centre for bringing it forward.
One of the things that is interesting about this is that an evolution is taking place. I originally had legislation in this chamber that passed. It was related to the right to repair, specific to the auto industry, because that was the first time we tackled this.
A common theme within Canada is that we are often treated as a colony when it comes to consumer rights. What I mean by that is the European Union and the United States often enjoy better auto recall, consumer rights, returns and other policies than we do here because we are lax, and our Competition Bureau needs reformation. We see some bills coming forth in this chamber, including from my leader, who also has a bill reforming the Competition Act, Bill C-56, and others that would improve things. Until that time, we still need to work on issues like this.
The right to repair became interesting for me because of the auto town I am in. Even representing auto companies, we still found that we were not getting treated fairly at that time. In Windsor, Ontario, we are across from Detroit, Michigan, and that is only a 2.5-kilometre distance across the border.
In Windsor, I could not get my minivan fixed aftermarket at the time, but I could drive it over the border and get it fixed in the aftermarket in Detroit, Michigan. That is because its environmental protection act and other right to repair legislation protected them much better than our Canadian system protected us.
I went across the country, back and forth a few times, and worked with a number of people. A good example is Scott Smith, who is now with the Chamber of Commerce, and others in the AIA. I worked with them for a legislative change for the automotive aftermarket. We knew that it was deficient in the overall issue, but just touching on that first point was really important because a lot of Canadians did not realize they were getting ripped off and getting treated as secondary citizens. It was unacceptable.
I remember having meetings with the auto companies. One of the executives was testing the waters about this issue, and it was really important. It was in the chamber of the other House before it closed down for renovations. I remember the CEO, after I told him what was going on, asked if it was happening in the United States. They said no, and he told his team to fix it. From that time, we got better players in the automotive aftermarket from some of the large automotive dealers.
Tony Clement was the minister at that time. The bill was going to go to the Senate. We had enough votes. It was a real fight, as is usual in this place, but that is okay. Then there was a decision made by all those involved that they would rather try a voluntary system, which we now have today and was put in place to provide the information for the aftermarket.
Why is that important? The aftermarket provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and is worth billions of dollars. It is also an issue of public safety because vehicles were being driven on the road for longer than they should not have been. Vehicles were emitting things, so it was an environmental issue because they were not tuned the way that they should have been. It was a competition issue because we had people who could not get the service they needed from the garages they wanted to use.
It was also a fairness issue because there were people working in those establishments who were trained. In those places, often some of the more marginalized workers in the industry were going to lose their jobs, not because they were not qualified or did not do all the things that were necessary, but because the industry and greed spoke louder than the people did at that time.
To credit most of those in the industry, they got their act together and created the voluntary agreement. There have been ups and downs all along the way. Even Tesla finally came onto that agreement, I am told. However, until that time, it was voluntary, so we had ebbs and flows all the time about what was taking place. That is why we are seeing legislation come back.
It is not just New Democrats this time. We see Liberals and Conservatives with aftermarket legislation, and that is because it has become habitual. I know the Bloc has also talked about this quite extensively. My colleague who spoke before me has been very effective at committee on this.
We have all grappled with this. We have seen the really stupid stuff with regard to how many plug-in cords we have to have with access to different devices for no technological reason whatsoever, and it is junk that is piling up in our landfills. Aside from the environmental part, there is a cost, and it has nothing to do with innovation whatsoever. It is about dependency, and those are some of the things taking place.
The aftermarket to fix the different problems we are talking about here is not about taking shortcuts. There is information that needs to be provided to those people, and it would be done with terms and conditions that would be legislated and followed through on.
When my bill went through, we were not asking for shortcuts or interventions; we were asking for the proper training to be made available. What was happening was unbelievable. When there was an update on software, which could literally be a simple and minor thing, it would cripple a vehicle, and it could not be fixed in the aftermarket. Sometimes, after the physical repairs, the vehicle was being towed to another garage just to get a download of a program. It makes no sense.
It does not make sense for the environment, public safety or competition, and it hurts some of the men and women who work in those shops. Again, they are not asking for this information for free. They want a system in place so they can buy the equipment, get the necessary downloads, pay for them and service their customers in a reasonable way.
There are many different ways the voluntary agreement has basically fallen on the edge of a precipice of being ineffective. There can be intentional issues, where some companies do not want to provide information in a reasonable time, or they play games if they want. It might not even be that. It could just be that it is not their priority, because they want to do something else.
This is dangerous. If we look at the auto sector, particularly in rural and other areas, we could not service all our vehicles with dealerships. We would cripple our economy. If we lose the aftermarket for the auto sector, then we are going to lose our capabilities to be effectively moving in transportation, which is changing with the electrification of vehicles.
The problem with my bill is that it did not involve heavy equipment, farm equipment or other things like that. We knew it was a problem in the bill, but we had to at least touch on this and bring an awareness that had not been there. It is why I went across the country on this, because people were just accepting it.
We always hear fake arguments that it is about safety, that people are going to wreck their stuff and other people's stuff. We hear all these different things. Imagine if we had the same attitude when we let the screwdriver go to the public sector and people were able to use a screwdriver at home. What if we could never use a wrench or a hammer at home because it was too dangerous? It is outrageous.
We have been fixing vehicles, electronic equipment and a number of different things, as we have moved from manual to electric and to all the different technologies with computers and so forth. It has been the normal process for consumers with the devices they own, but what is happening and changing is the building in of obstacles.
There is an obstacle when a device is created where one needs a special tool for it. An obstacle is when one puts a type of system in place where one cannot fix a device because there is a technological impediment, such as to performing a simple update on the software.
Bill C-244 is married, in many respects, to my bill, Bill C-231, an act to amend the Competition Act for vehicle repair. There are some problems with the bill, such as that it does not go far enough in terms of the tribunal, as well as a few other elements. However, it sets us in the right direction. I would like to see it amended. I hope the Senate takes a look at more of the possibilities.
We are just simply not keeping up with the rest of the world when it comes to aftermarket connections. There is mounting pressure. We have just seen with Apple that it is finally to make a more standardized version of its cord, which it did not even have in its own products. This is outrageous. Now it is going to move to that. Why is it doing so? It is because the European Union is moving toward forcing these things.
These are the reasons I will be supporting this bill. New Democrats have been supporting the right to repair. As much as it is a consumer issue and an environmental issue, it is also a social justice issue, because many people have spent their time and money to be educated to have careers in the aftermarket in order to provide resources for their families. That opportunity is being denied, not by choice or by their deficiency of skills, but by the greed of large corporations that want to protect it for pure profit at the expense of everyone else. That balance has to be restored, and that is why this is a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the important bill.
I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the member for Richmond Centre, for the tremendous effort he has put into making the bill come to this place today. He has travelled across the country; he has talked to stakeholders from coast to coast to coast; and he has put in the work that is required, in partnership with many others in this place, so that we can be here today doing something that is in the interest of affordability and in the interest of protecting the rights of Canadians.
It was wonderful to hear the member opposite talk about how this is a social justice issue, because it is. It is important for us to pass legislation that makes life more affordable and allows Canadians to have access to, and to use, the very things they buy. The bill seeks to remove an important barrier to repair, as we have heard, in the copyright framework. It is a necessary response to the digitization of our everyday lives and our everyday products, which rely more and more on functionalities enabled by copyright-protected software.
We all know that software is important. There are benefits that it gives the products we buy. Software allows smart phones and computers to connect people across the globe. It is what transforms coffee machines into great baristas, much to the chagrin of many.
However, the digitization of our products comes with downsides. Manufacturers are using TPMs, technical protection measures, to protect the software that is incorporated within products. They reduce the ability we would ordinarily have to repair these items. They reduce our ability to modify them. Only when they malfunction must we go to the manufacturers and seek their help to repair them and to make sure the products can work.
The Copyright Act currently prohibits the circumvention of these TPMs that protect copyright-protected content. It is being used as a barrier to Canadians who want to repair the products they own. Protections for TPMs were originally promoted as tools to encourage the creative industries to offer their works, whether they were songs, books or movies, in digital form, but they were never intended to prevent the repair of physical products that include embedded software.
The bill proposes to remove that barrier by ensuring there is an exception permitting the circumvention of TPMs for the purpose of repair and maintenance so that the copyright framework does not prevent Canadians from repairing the products they have paid for.
Over past years, much effort has been made to remove this barrier in the copyright framework. Bill C-244 was introduced in February 2022 by my colleague from Richmond Centre. It received unanimous support at second reading, and at this time the committee has completed its study. I want to acknowledge the members of that committee, who have done tremendous work and all those who have appeared as witnesses to help improve the important bill.
The study of the bill was exhaustive and thorough. The committee heard from 29 witnesses, including representatives from different industries, public interest groups and government officials. Ultimately, the committee reported the bill with amendments that I believe will help make it better achieve its objective while aligning it with Canada's international obligations.
The amendments would do three things. First, they would make the repair exception permitting the circumvention of TPMs more effective by making it clear that they would apply to third parties making repairs on behalf of product owners. The technical capacity required to circumvent the TPM and repair products is likely beyond the knowledge of average consumers, at least speaking for myself.
Second, in order to prevent any abuse and protect creative industries, the amendments would add a new safeguard that provides that the repair exception applies only if there is no infringement of copyright.
Third, the amendments would remove the exception in Bill C-244 allowing the trade of tools to circumvent a TPM for the purposes of repair in order to mitigate risks of non-compliance with Canada's international obligations. CUSMA, which includes Canada's strictest TPM obligations, only allows the trade of circumvention tools in very limited situations, and repair is not one of them.
Now that I have touched a bit on what these amendments are doing, I also want to highlight what they are not doing. Some witnesses raised concerns over health and safety, cybersecurity and environmental risks that may result in the circumvention of TPMs and the repair of products. They asked for the exclusion of certain categories of products from the application of Bill C-244. The committee, in its work, did not report any amendments excluding certain product categories from the application of Bill C-244 or providing the means to do so, and I believe the committee took the right approach.
I agree with the witnesses that these concerns are real and justified, but the Copyright Act is not designed to deal with these risks. The Copyright Act is a law of general application, the purpose of which is to grant exclusive rights over creative works. It is preferable that these concerns be addressed in those regimes that already regulate those products. Bill C-244 would not prevent these regimes regulating repairs and addressing issues that may arise in the repair of certain products. It is, however, worth noting that Bill C-244 would remove one critical barrier to repair, but it is only one element of how Canadians can enjoy a positive right to repair. Other elements of a comprehensive right to repair could include a number of dimensions, including ensuring access to repair parts and manuals.
This important measure supports the Government of Canada's commitment to providing Canadians with the right to repair. Our efforts to move forward with this bill would ensure that Canadians will face fewer obstacles when repairing the products they own.
I was pleased to second this bill. It is an important piece of legislation for us to all get behind. Let us think about the many costs that Canadians incur during the course of their lives every single day. We talk about affordability in this place all the time, and this is a tangible way to increase the longevity of products. It would make it easier for Canadians to use the products they have paid for with their hard-earned money.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House to conclude this thoughtful debate on my private member's bill.
I want to emphasize again the impact this bill would bring to Canadians, from leading the movement for a right to repair framework in Canada to reducing waste in our landfills to giving the right to repair back to consumers in Canada. By amending the Copyright Act for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair, not having to worry about potential legal consequences will become a reality for all Canadians.
I am proud to be a member of this chamber, and I was pleased to see all of my hon. colleagues from all parties support my private member's bill to get to this stage. With this joint effort, Canada can join its allies in the right to repair movement and promote the consumerism we are all proud of. After all, this bill would amend the Copyright Act for the creation of a right to repair framework in Canada, and all levels of government, indigenous people, industry, private sectors and consumers across Canada can join the effort in developing this framework.
As a legislator, I have listened to and heard Canadians calling for a right to repair framework in Canada. Bill C-244 would empower us as lawmakers on federal, provincial and territorial levels to make this policy reform for consumers across Canada.
As a consumer, we all like to have a choice to repair the products we purchase and own. This is a fundamental right, and Bill C-244 would ensure that consumers in Canada have this right.
As a Canadian, I lament the waste in our landfills across Canada, and the numbers continue to increase. This waste, especially electronic waste, is harmful to our environment.
We all have a shared responsibility to protect our environment and combat climate change together. Bill C-244 would help reduce planned obsolescence, waste and our carbon footprint to protect our environment. We as Canadians need to do our part to contribute toward Canada's sustainable future, to combat climate change from coast to coast to coast and to protect the interests of our future generations.
Canada is a great democratic nation. It is a nation that is at the forefront of building a future of sustainable consumerism. To end this debate, I would like to invite all my hon. colleagues to continue working together on delivering a real result in the right to repair for Canadians and to continue to make Canada the envy of the world.
I thank members and witnesses from the standing committees and stakeholders for the work and input they have shared along this journey of my private member's bill.
I want to thank the people of Richmond Centre for all of their continued trust and support for the past two years. Without them, I would not have had this opportunity to work on my private member's bill, which would bring such an impact to them and to consumers across Canada.
I would also like to thank our House administration and clerks of the House for all the work and support to every parliamentarian. I am grateful to have the privilege of presenting my private member's bill early on the list.
Last but never least, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family for walking alongside me every moment of this journey, for their continued sacrifice and for being so understanding when I cannot be there with them on various occasions. I also would like to congratulate my youngest sister, who recently married my now brother-in-law Carlos, on their recent marriage.
I would like to wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving, and it is with great gratitude that I present this bill to the chamber.
This is why I like Private Members' Business. When everybody agrees, it is a nice debate.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to now rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
I want to wish each and every one of you a happy Thanksgiving. Have a good week with your constituents, and we will see you here on October 16.
It being 2:28 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 16, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:28 p.m.)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer