Debates of April 15th, 2021

Copyright Act

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for Cambridge for presenting this bill. As he alluded to quite nicely in his speech, it has a very far-reaching impact into rural Canada and to our farming communities.

It is important because our Copyright Act, as he also mentioned, is very outdated. It was written long ago, and it needs to be updated. It needs to be more flexible, and it needs to be able to respond more quickly to the needs of industry and, quite frankly, to the new reality we live in with everything being digitized. A lot of the things written in the Copyright Act go back prior to the time when everything was as digitized as it is here.

I am going to touch a little on the right to repair as it pertains to farmers. I grew up on a family farm down in southwest Saskatchewan. I am going to talk about my experience. I remember many times, in the middle of August, my dad would be out on the combine, the John Deere 9500 model that we had, and something would break down.

My dad is a very innovative fellow and is able to repair a lot of things. He is a jack of all trades, as he calls himself. He would spend some time trying to figure out what the issue was, and he would be able to identify the problem. This was prior to all the digital diagnostics that exist nowadays. He would figure out what part he needed, and he would radio back to the house and ask my mom if she could start calling all the different dealers in the area to see if we could find the part. Yes, I am old enough that we still talked on two-way radios and CB radios on the farm. It was one of the joys of childhood.

My mom would get on the phone and start calling all the different places. She would call the first John Deere dealer, which would be about an hour away, and they would not have the part. Then she would phone the next one, about an hour and a half away, and they would not have the part. She would call and call, and finally she would find out where the part was. Then we would have to drive four or five hours to get that part, because nobody but John Deere made that part.

Right to repair for a lot of people is a lot more than just a digital screen or an Xbox or an iPhone or things like that. The right to repair goes back prior to the digital age that we live in now.

Going back to the story, we would hop in a vehicle at about two o'clock in the afternoon, in the middle of August, and we would drive to wherever we were going, whether it be Saskatoon or wherever, to pick up one part, quickly turn around and drive four or five hours back home. We would get home late at night. My dad would get up at five o'clock in the morning to get that part into the machine so that everything could be up and running by 7 a.m. and we could get on with the harvest.

For a lot of people, that is the reality of the situation. First of all, people did not have access to the parts, because they were controlled by the big manufacturers. Now, with everything being digitized, the first tool is a computer or the diagnostics that exist within the machine. It can only be done by the OEM, the mainline company, and they are the only ones who can repair it.

That is the situation we are facing here now. It is a big impediment for people who live out in the rural regions of our country. As was alluded to by the previous speaker, it is a big part of the security of our food production here in this country.

The innovative spirit of farmers, as we all know, is legendary. They are all very good at being able to make a lot of things work with what they have in front of them. This legislation is important. Even if farmers had their own repair shops, if there was an old enough piece of equipment, it could be taken to their shop and they could fix it and get it up and running again.

Those are the kinds of issues at stake here. I appreciate that we are trying to get the Copyright Act to be a little more responsive. This is one of many things that need to be amended in the Copyright Act. There are other areas of the Copyright Act that need to be changed. I am going to talk a little about that. It would help aid manufacturing, too, because there is a similar issue with being able to make products that interoperate with one another. I think it is important that we have this exemption carved out for right to repair. It would help to pave the way for more certainty in manufacturing as we go forward.

As we look at the steam right to repair is gaining, we can look to the United States. There was an article written by VICE Magazine, and the headline said, “The Right to Repair Movement Is Poised to Explode in 2021”. At that time, there were 14 states in the U.S. that were looking at right to repair legislation. The article had to be updated, because about a month later it reported that the number had almost doubled and upwards of 25 states were considering right to repair.

As has been pointed out, it is extremely important to recognize that this is not just a localized issue, or an issue that is unique to our country or to different regions of Canada; it is around the world. It is important that we properly give consideration to this. We are gaining some momentum in Canada with this debate today.

As already mentioned, these TPMs have, at least in some cases, included unnecessary burdens for consumers and users, in particular Canadian farmers. They go past what is fair and reasonable for protecting their interests and they end up putting their customers and users in a bind, the same people who these companies are supposed to be serving.

Quite frankly, as we alluded to, it is people who are left at the whims of the OEMs on whether they can diagnose the machines. The main manufacturers are the only ones that have the diagnostic capability for these machines. That was different with automotive. People can get a code reader for their truck, but we cannot get it for agricultural equipment. That is part of what the bill tries to address.

Another part of it, and the member for Cambridge made a good job pointing out, a lot of consumer and competition protections are within provincial boundaries. With his bill, he is trying to provide a bit of certainty at the federal level that will allow for further enforcement of these anti-competitive and bad measures against consumers, and that is good.

On the benefits of law in the market, competition and innovation are well known. Unfortunately, some of the bigger players are using their rights and ownership over their products. In this case, as was with copyright, it is the software to create unfair disadvantages to their competition. We are in some ways at the risk of moving toward the problems of monopolies and what that means for our farmers and for the end users. This eventually hurts consumers as well as those businesses, so it goes beyond just farmers, whether it be phones, video game consoles, computers and different things.

Along with the terms of TPMs this is also sometimes done through the warranty side of things. I am sure we have all seen this, that our warranties are voided if opened. In Canadian law, technically, that statement cannot made because it is an anti-competitive, anti-consumer principle. However, we do not see the enforcement of these laws coming into effect. That needs to be addressed as well. I do not know if the bill necessarily addresses that issue, but it starts us the right direction to allow for better certainty in our competition and consumer acts.

Some would argue that this might already be excluded in Canadian law, at least as an implicit principle, but the situation is apparently not clear enough for the legality or the adequate enforcement, as I alluded to.

As we go forward, the bill is a step in the right direction. As I said at the start, our Copyright Act needs to be more responsive. It needs to be able to act quickly and we need to be able to make changes as needed to ensure we provide certainty in the marketplace.

Again, I want to acknowledge that the member has done a good job by going in the right direction. There are a few things we can do that maybe would help provide more certainty in the bill. It is a bill we can work with, but going forward it puts us on the right track. I commend the member for putting the bill forward.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Copyright Act is intended to ensure that artists can earn a living from their art and to protect their work from being copied or used in ways they do not approve of.

In fact, discussions with associations like Copibec and Access Copyright have helped me identify issues that need to be brought to our attention, such as fair compensation for creators and publishers for the educational use of their work, as well as the loss of sales revenue associated with the education sector, especially the Canadian university environment.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry should consider reviewing the act. Many stakeholders are calling for just that, particularly when the work is protected from pirates by a digital lock. The law prohibits breaking that lock to reproduce or alter the work without the consent of the copyright owner, which is good.

Now companies have decided to use the Copyright Act for other purposes, namely industrial and commercial purposes. When a consumer product contains electronic components, which is the case with almost everything today, many companies have included a digital device to prevent repairs from being made, unless the company has expressly provided the codes.

According to these companies, a repair person who overrides a digital lock to fix our phone, car or tractor without the consent of the company commits an offence under the Copyright Act. Thus, it becomes impossible to fix an item that belongs to us, is broken or not working properly, unless we go to one of the company's dealers.

In some cases, obtaining replacement parts from a third party is considered an infringement, and this discourages any expert or company from providing this service. Even worse, in many cases the company will have several reasons for refusing to repair the item, which forces us to buy a new product. That is programmed obsolescence, which is a terrible source of waste both financially and environmentally.

Given that technological waste represents a growing environmental concern, several measures should be looked at. Today's debate concerns a small part of this burden, but we must consider making changes to laws to allow the repair, diagnostics and maintenance of electronic devices in particular.

Bill C-272 seeks to amend the Copyright Act to allow a person to circumvent a technological protection measure in a computer program if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product in which the program is embedded.

The member for Cambridge will be pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We believe that the amendments that we are debating today will prevent the act from being twisted for economic and industrial ends, especially when it is intended to protect artists. This is a worthwhile bill that confirms that we have the right to repair products that belong to us or to have them repaired. The people doing the repairs, whether they be mechanics or computer specialists, will no longer risk being sued for copyright infringement. This will open the door to healthy competition and the development of the SMEs that we are so proud of in Quebec.

Once we are no longer at the mercy of the company's authorized retailer, we will likely be able to save a fortune. The bill will be particularly useful in the regions, where large corporations do not open stores, which means residents have no way to get their products repaired. I find that is particularly true of Apple.

By fixing a provision in the Copyright Act that manufacturers used to prevent people from repairing their products, the bill establishes the right to repair one's possessions. Bill C-272 clarifies that a person can circumvent a protection measure for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance or repair. This will democratize repair businesses, help grow our local businesses and support healthy competition. It will apply to electronic, computer and mechanical devices, such as John Deere tractors, which the company insists on repairing itself.

My region is overflowing with talent, but our population is not large enough for big corporations like Apple to open stores there, even though most of our residents own one of its devices. We have few options when one of our devices breaks down. We can travel 600 kilometres to the nearest store; mail in the device, which means we cannot use it for some time; or, sadly, just get a new one, even if the old one only needed a minor repair.

Still, there is no shortage of talent in my region. We have many small businesses that could do the work, but they do not have the right to do it or do not have access to the parts to do it. In that sense, the bill is a step in the right direction towards supporting the development of our local businesses and establishing the terms and conditions that will foster healthy competition.

The Bloc Québécois supports the changes proposed in Bill C-272, because they promote healthy competition and the development of our economic ecosystem in the regions and in major centres. For consumers, it also allows for freedom of choice and full ownership of the items they have purchased.

For all the reasons previously mentioned, we believe that it is important to preserve the very essence of the foundation of the Copyright Act, which aims to protect the rights of individuals who own literary and artistic property and which encourages fair compensation for the work they do. Using this legislation as a ploy in an industry to limit competition distorts its nature and, in that sense, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-272, introduced by the member for Cambridge.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-272, a right to repair bill. It is actually very similar to one that I had passed in the House of Commons and I will talk about that in a little bit.

I want to congratulate the member for bringing this forward, because it is part of a cultural shift we have had in economics. It is about our economy, of course. It is also about rights and it is about a series of different things that are important. It is about competition too. Today, we had a boost for competition. I want to thank all those who were involved in the campaign to stop Nav Canada from closing airports.

In Windsor, we had this case brought forward and I want to thank Mayor Drew Dilkens, the Windsor Flying Club, Rakesh Naidu from the chamber of commerce, Brian Hogan from the labour council, and pilots Karan D'Souza and Dante Albano, just to mention a few. There are many others. I could go on and on.

I do not want to spend my whole time on that, but I do want to recognize them because they fought for public safety and for competition. We were successful today, when the government said that it could not do anything and there was no way to intervene. I offered a private member's bill, and even questioned the Prime Minister yesterday, and today we were successful in stopping that process. Again, this is about competition, fairness and public safety.

I had my original bill, Bill C-425, and also then reintroduced Bill C-273, which was passed in the House of Commons under a minority Conservative government. It went to committee, came out of committee and we reached a voluntary agreement. It provided information for the automotive aftermarket. Canada was being treated differently from many other countries in the world by some corporations. We were being treated as a colony, quite frankly. The United States was getting information to help fix vehicles in the aftermarket because it had provisions on the Environmental Protection Agency and through some of its consumer legislation. In Windsor, people could drive their car over into Detroit and get it fixed in the aftermarket. Meanwhile, over here in Windsor, flash software, which was important to reset the car, was denied, training was denied, and tools and other things were denied to the aftermarket, affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country. In fact, my bill took me everywhere from the east coast to the west coast and even to some parts of the north. We found that many Canadians were losing out.

As I mentioned, competition is not just with regard to jobs for people in the aftermarket fixing the products and services, it is also about jobs related to servicing the industries. People were driving vehicles that threatened public safety because they were not fixed. They would have to wait for an opening in a shop to get it done, or have it towed somewhere to be safe. Environmentally, there was an impact: cars were on the road even longer and they were higher polluters. I commend the member for bringing this forward because it is more robust in many respects. It would provide some fairness and competition that is necessary.

Right now we are grappling with electronic waste. There is so much unnecessary ending of the life of products and services, in particular, hardware and devices. Later on, the small shops and small and medium-sized businesses are shut out. They cannot get the right information because of a monopolistic approach by some of the larger corporations.

This bill would help level the playing field. It would not interfere with intellectual property. It would not undermine the production and assembly of the first product to start with. It provides for what we have always had in our societies, which is secondary work on objects that are useful in our society. In the farming community, in the auto manufacturing community where I am, in the software industry or in the electronic device industry, we found multiple and continued uses of products. To have them denied just because of a monopolistic approach by a large corporation that is using basically a back door to prevent that type of an economy is not helpful.

We found some companies are very progressive on this. In my case, General Motors officials were open and shared their information. They treated Canada pretty much the same as they treated the United States. Right now, one of the problem companies we have in the automotive aftermarket sector is Tesla. The people at Tesla refused to sign the voluntary agreement that we have in place, and it needs some modernization. I thank the member again because this is going to bring to light some of those issues.

My agreement at the time was made with Tony Clement, who was the minister of industry then. Basically, we had it pass in the House of Commons, and the aftermarket association, at the end of the day, agreed at the time that we would settle with the voluntary agreement instead of bringing it through as an actual law. It is still on the paper and on the books, and it is still enforceable in many respects, but it is not as strong as it could be. However, that was okay. We were compromising to work together as a country and as political parties.

As a New Democrats, we found this to be a step forward right away, and it avoided, of course, the Senate. I have far too often had some of my bills, the sports betting bill, for example, and there are others, die in the Senate for a lot of different, complicated, and some not so complicated, reasons.

At that point in time, we decided to go that path, but that needs to be renewed and looked as well. Bill C-272 is an opportunity to build upon that agreement because it is about 10 years old. Now we are dealing with software, personal information and a whole series of different things that are more complex than they were a decade ago.

Again, the bill, if passed, would prevent, for example, electronic waste. How much money do members of the public, municipalities and taxpayers actually have to spend for the disposal of electronic waste that does not have the proper life cycle because companies will not provide the information or software, or they block the equipment, tools or the capacity to repair those things? I think we have all had frustration over phones or other electronic devices that had a cracked screen or something like that, which is a very modest problem, but it becomes a big complication for some devices just because of the proprietary nature of some of the organizations that will not allow a smaller shop or workplace to deal with it.

What is really important about this bill, which is kind of undercharacterized and sometimes under-reported, is that some of our young people who are very innovative, creative and tech savvy are looking at new parts of the economy and are very engaged in dealing with the new aftermarket devices. We do not want to stymie that type of innovation because they use it to bounce further innovation and further development of products and services that are very important for us.

We have seen how hard it is for young entrepreneurs to get going. Can members imagine, for example, if back in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s we were told that we could never have a shop that could even touch a vehicle, other than the major automotive companies?

However, Bill C-272 also deals with farm equipment, which was, sadly, left out in my proposed legislation. This is an improvement, because there is high tech involved in that equipment, which is very important. As well, we have the whole aftermarket for vehicles, such as emergency vehicles, heavy equipment and a series of things that were really left out.

As New Democrats, we are very proud to support Bill C-272, because it builds upon what we believe is very solid consumer protection, very solid environmental protection and very solid competition elements. In the industry committee, we have been dealing with the competition in this country, and our Competition Act is far outdated. It needs a lot of work and needs to be revived basically from the front to the back cover. Canada, at one point, was a leader in competition, but we basically left that on the shelf.

What are we going to do in the meantime? We only have limited opportunities to put on the pressure to get some good change for the economy and for the consumers, and Bill C-272 is part of that. There are elements that we could probably find some agreement on for the Competition Act right now that could pass rather quickly. However, other things that are much more complicated and complex, but the bill before us is not that. The bill is actually part of something that could, right away, protect consumers and a lot of jobs.

I am going to conclude by saying that Bill C-272 is more important than it might seem on the surface. It is not just about fixing a device in the kitchen, a phone, or any other electronic device. It is much more complex than that. It is about hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country that are at risk.

It is also about public safety, because many devices continue to be used improperly or are tinkered with and not fixed correctly because of not having a good third-party that is actually responsible in getting the proper parts, services and information from the supplier. As well, environmentally, it would very much be an improvement, because we would extend the lifespan of things.

Again, I congratulate the member for putting this bill forward. I really appreciate it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to be a part of the consensus I am seeing inside the chamber. Some of my New Democrat, Bloc and Conservative colleagues are saying that my friend and colleague for Cambridge has done a great service to this chamber by bringing forward such progressive legislation as a private member's bill. When I think of members being able to contribute to broader society, the member has hit it right on. I applaud him on the initiative.

I am not 100% sure where he came up with the idea, or the people he worked with, but I suspect, knowing the member for Cambridge, that this is something that is exceptionally well-thought-out, as he would have consulted and worked with a number of people on a great idea. I am really hopeful it will get to the committee stage. Having one of our standing committees, at the very least, deal with it would do a great service to Canadians. I believe we could even go beyond that, but for now I would be very happy to see it go to the committee stage.

As has been pointed out, the right to repair has been a bit of a public issue in different forums that go beyond our national borders. We have seen other jurisdictions attempt to deal with it. Over the last decade, this is the first time I am really seeing this debate be brought to the floor. As we have seen other jurisdictions attempt to deal with it, I think it is appropriate that we also deal with it.

We have to take a holistic approach to dealing with copyright. The framework's size is significant, and we have to appreciate that. I think this debate and the discussions we could see at committee would go a long way to improving the overall framework. I know a couple of our ministers have been doing consulting on the issue. What we are seeing today would add value to the consultations those ministers and the government have been looking at.

When I think of copyright, three areas come to mind. I have a personal favourite, as I suspect many members of the House might have, which is consumers. We need to think of our consumers. That is my number one priority.

Protecting the rights of creators is my second priority. It is something we have to be aware of when having any discussions in the House. The third point is that it is important, as a government, that we understand and appreciate innovation and create an environment that promotes and encourages it. I liked that the member for Cambridge addressed all three of those points in his comments, if not directly then indirectly. In doing so, he alleviated many of the concerns that people might have. The prohibition against circumventing copyrights and technology protection measures, or TPMs, makes me a little nervous, I must say. I may be dating myself.

I was born in the early sixties, in 1962 to be more precise, and I can remember my first car, which I think was a 1968 Rambler. I first started to play around with it as a very young person, when I took an interest in automobiles. Computers were not even imagined then, and when I would pop the hood of my vehicle, there was no technology. There were pistons, piston rings and spark plugs, and when I would put some gas in it, there was a bit of an expulsion of gas and the car somehow ran.

Over the years, there were thousands of people like me who took an interest in cars and had a passion for them. We understood that if something broke it was no problem. We could go to Canadian Tire, pick up the part and fix it ourselves. I spend a lot of time on computers nowadays, as I know all of us do, but as much as I love them and appreciate the technology, I can honestly say that to a certain degree I miss the days when I could pop the hood of my Mustang and play around with it, fix it up and get that sense of pride from getting something done.

Computer technology has really changed that. Innovations have changed that. For the most part, this has been for good. We see, for example, more efficient vehicles. Vehicles are healthier for our environment because of some of the technological gains we put into place. Here is a sad story: I remember the days where I could get a drill, put it in reverse and backpedal the speedometer. We cannot do that nowadays because of technology.

There is good there, and I applaud the creative minds that advanced us. I do not want to take away from the innovation that Canadians are so good at. However, having said that, we understand and appreciate that at times we see what some might call corporate greed. There are unpleasant ways of describing people who find ways to prevent local consumers from doing what they believe they should be able to do, and in all fairness, we should allow them to do it.

When I think of the legislation by my colleague from Cambridge, I see an attempt to find a fair balance, respecting what I believe are the three fundamentals: our consumers, our creators and, at the same time, continuing to encourage innovation.

Over the years, one thing I have seen within our government is that there has been, as there will continue to be, very strong representation for protecting consumers. We also see that in part from other members speaking on behalf of other political entities in the House. I can make reference to the framework of the marketplace, recognizing that we have a culture or economy that respects protection. In other words, if we go to people with a copyright law to protect a creator, whether it is for an artistic musical disk or a software program, Canadians as a whole understand why we do that. It is important that we have a public education component so that people understand the benefits of copyright. It is really important.

As we look to modernize our copyright—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That will have to be the subject of another speech.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to address the topic of right to repair. My colleague for Winnipeg North took us down memory lane, sharing his own experiences of working on cars growing up.

This bill brings a certain degree of nostalgia for me as well. I fondly remember, about 10 years ago, working as a staffer in the office of the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, as we responded to the issue that had been brought forward by the member for Windsor West as a private member's bill in the auto sector. Those were great days. I was 22 years old. I owned one suit that I bought second-hand. I wore it every day to the office and dry cleaned it when there were parliamentary recesses. It was a great time, and the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin did not tease me too much about my limited attire. I learned all about right to repair as a university student who had never owned a vehicle.

The member for Windsor West had brought forward at this time legislation that proposed bringing in a right to repair for vehicles. It was a contentious issue, with different stakeholders bringing forward different concerns. It was the kind of issue that was non-partisan, but not in the sense that everybody exactly agreed about where we should go with it. There were different points of view, intentions and debates within all of the major parties, certainly within the Conservatives and the Liberals, about the best way forward. There were legitimate competing considerations with the issue of right to repair at the time, recognizing that if people owned a vehicle they should be able to repair it. Today we are talking about other devices. It can be a major challenge for people if they cannot access, or get a reasonable price to access, the support they need in their community to repair their property.

On the other hand, there was a great deal of concern about legislatively mandating the handing over of certain material. There were fears that access to manuals could lead to reverse engineering, which could undermine important aspects of intellectual property protection and could undermine the rights of creators and the importance of innovation.

At the time, we were able to work toward an important solution, which was to have a voluntary agreement among different parts of the sector. I think a combination of a discussion of the issue of pressure, but also the real desire of stakeholders to work together, led to a resolution in the form of a voluntary agreement. There was a framework put in place for the sharing of information.

I appreciated hearing the member for Windsor West talk about the experience of working toward a voluntary agreement, because it created a framework in which everybody's concerns could be respected, and the goal was certainly that people would be able to access the repairs they needed for their vehicles, so that there would be a transfer of information as appropriate in those cases and that there would be compensation. Of course, we do not always have cases where things work out that way, but that was the result in that case. It was a great opportunity for a young staffer, as I was at the time, to have a ringside seat to these conversations that were going on.

The work of different members and the conversations around it were a part of the process because, in the end, the bill was supported by a majority of members of all parties at the second reading stage. It went to committee, and it was at that point that everything was kind of finalized around the voluntary agreement—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It will have to stay there for the moment.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Natural Resources

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, how fitting it is that I would follow the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan reminiscing about his one suit. While he might not think I teased him, I just did not tease him to his face about his single suit. We certainly noticed it and I rib him from time to time. He was a great parliamentary secretary assistant, by the way.

The genesis of my speech tonight for four minutes goes back to four questions that I have asked. I asked the same question four times. I asked it in November, December and twice in February. I got non-answers every time and, interestingly, I got the same non-answer three out of the four times. I am going to read the initial question so everyone will have the gist of it. The initial question was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, there is no one in the world more committed to clean energy production than Canadians working in the oil and gas sector, yet because the Liberal government has made it impossible for the private sector to build a pipeline in this country, we continue to import hundreds of thousands of barrels a day. After the U.S., the top source countries in recent years are Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria.

Could the minister tell us if oil imported to Canada from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria is subject to the same rigorous regulation on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland?

It is a pretty straightforward question. The parliamentary secretary at the time in November gave a laundry list of completely unrelated projects, a completely incomprehensible response. I cannot even call it an answer. I revisited the question on December 11. I will not read the preamble, but the question will sound very familiar. It was, “Can the government commit that the tens of millions of barrels of oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Nigeria will be subject to the same rigorous regulations as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland in terms of upstream and downstream emissions?”

This time, interestingly, the parliamentary secretary pretty much read the exact same non-answer from the script that he read the first time I asked the question and threw a couple of things in. He talked about “continuing to make sure we have the highest standards so that when we export, we make sure we have the highest standards in the world.” He added that at the end of the same list that he read off the previous time. As for export, we cannot even get it from one province to another. We are not even talking about exporting. We are talking about the fact that we are giving preference to oil coming from places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria over oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. That makes absolutely no sense to any reasonable Canadian looking at the issue.

I decided, since I did not get any answers the first two times, to ask the question again and I was heartened, actually, because on February 19 when I stood to ask the question, I noticed that the minister was there. The minister is from Newfoundland, so having been briefed about the fact that I had asked this question a couple of times, I thought maybe the parliamentary secretary would be a little sheepish about it. I asked the same question and got the exact same list of projects.

I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary one more time. Could he tell us if oil imported to Canada from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria is subject to the same rigorous regulation on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I will attempt to answer the member's questions and also provide a list of some of our accomplishments along those lines.

I will start by saying that, as members know, our government has supported the oil and gas sector and its workers throughout the worst of this pandemic and we will continue to be there for them.

Thanks to the actions taken by our government to support Canadians through the Canada emergency wage subsidy, more than 500,000 workers were able to keep their jobs in Alberta alone. We also contributed $1.7 billion to help the provinces clean up orphaned wells.

The funding has already created thousands of jobs and will be good for our environment. That is an important support measure.

For ordinary Canadians, their families and communities and our environment, there has been significant government support for major energy projects like TMX, Line 3, Line 5, NGTL 2021, LNG Canada. That is a list of projects that we have approved. That is a fact.

Each of these projects has the potential to create thousands of jobs in our energy sector. For the government, and I am sure for all Canadians too, that is a good thing. We always support the energy sector.

Regarding our oil imports, there is much I would like to discuss with the member.

I will note that oil imports to Canada have been falling steadily since 2010, going from 820,000 barrels a day in 2010 to 555,000 barrels a day in 2020.

I will also note, for my hon. colleague, that the majority of the oil imported into Canada, 77% to be precise, comes from our largest energy trading partner, the United States. Maintaining a strong and positive energy relationship with our largest trading partner has been, and will be, a continued effort. Many of the refineries in eastern Canada choose to import crude oil when it is more economic for operations.

Canada remains, indeed, a net exporter of fuels. Some circumstances exist on real imports. This is in keeping with the fact that Canada has a market-based energy framework whereby the private sector makes decisions on imports and exports, including those based on costs.

Our government will continue to do the hard work necessary to attract investment and build capacity to market our resources safely, responsibly and sustainably. We will continue working to ensure the energy sector remains an important source of well-paying jobs for Canadians across the country. We will also continue to move forward in the transition to a low-carbon economy on a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 by investing in innovation and delivering economic growth in a competitive industry for clean jobs while protecting the environment.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, after four or five months, and with an army of public servants to give briefings on the issue, there is still absolutely zero attempt to answer the question, which relates to the oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Nigeria, and other countries such as Azerbaijan, Côte d'Ivoire, Columbia, Russia and Kazakhstan. The question is whether oil coming from those countries is subject to the same rigorous regulations on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

I am pretty sure the answer is no. Perhaps the hon. member could simply answer that question and confirm it by answering yes or no.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, all members know that Canada is an energy trading nation, and that we export our natural resources and import from other nations.

Members know full well that the United States is one of our most important trade partners, in energy and in other sectors. The same is true for oil imports into Canada, since the majority of our country's imported oil comes from the United States.

This is a long-standing energy trading relationship, which our government is proud of. I will reiterate for members that imports of oil into Canada have steadily declined since 2010, and our government will continue to work hard to ensure we reach net-zero emissions by 2050 while delivering economic growth, competitive industry and clean jobs and protecting our environment.

Finance

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the house this evening to speak about the question I asked the Minister of Finance, that is, when the next budget will be tabled. It will be tabled next Monday.

I also want to talk about vaccines. From the beginning, the Liberal government did not provide Canadians with the vaccines they needed. This failure is rooted in the government's efforts, at the very outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, to establish partnerships with China for the development of vaccines. This partnership quickly collapsed and only resulted in a scandalous waste of time.

While the Liberals were busy trying to reach agreements with China, our global allies were signing contracts with Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Canada had no choice but to try to catch up because it was so far behind. Since the beginning, the Liberal government has failed to obtain vaccines for Canadians. The government's dithering has only exacerbated the delays and obstacles that we are still facing today in getting Canadians vaccinated. The delays continue to this day. Last week, 850,000 doses of the Moderna vaccine were supposed to arrive in Canada, but they did not. Government officials say that we could be facing a similar delay for 1.2 million doses from Moderna.

In the midst of the third wave, Canadians are still worried about the future and about getting through the pandemic. That is normal. The Prime Minister himself contributed to those worries. He kept promising that all Canadians who wanted a vaccine would get one by the end of September. However, in order for that to happen, 400,000 doses will have to be administered every day until then.

Do we really have confidence that this target can be met? Based on what we have seen so far, I do not think so. It took four months to get the first dose to 20% of Canadians. Compared to our partners, Canada's vaccine rollout and overall management of the pandemic have been complete and utter failures.

The United States has administered nearly 190 million vaccines so far and has fully vaccinated 22% of its population. The United Kingdom has given both doses to 40 million people, which represents 14.5% of its population. By March, half of U.K. residents had received their first doses. In Canada, just 2.1% of the 33.7 million Canadians have been fully vaccinated.

The Liberals are boasting about over-delivering. It is like setting our own targets. The Liberals set a target so low that they would be sure to exceed it. Bad targets lead to bad results. Even if the targets are exceeded, the results will still be poor. This is bad for Canadians.

However, I must say that I am glad the Liberals will finally present a budget on Monday. Canada is the country that has gone the longest without presenting a budget during the pandemic. The other G7 countries and the Canadian provinces have presented theirs.

Why am I delighted to have a budget? It is because the Liberals never adequately responded to the pandemic and thousands of Canadians continue to suffer. Businesses have had to shut down permanently. Millions of Canadians are facing a harsh reality.

The Canadian economy and its workers are still at risk because of the vaccine failures and also because the Liberal government failed to present a real plan—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The parliamentary secretary.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I will point out for my friend and colleague opposite that the question he intended to ask was about the timing of the budget, and I am pleased as well to share that the budget will be tabled this Monday.

On the issue of the timing of the budget, I know he registered some complaints about the fact that there was no federal budget last year, and that should come as no surprise. All parties, in fact, agreed to a specific process when Parliament was not sitting due to an unprecedented public health emergency to have certain emergency powers offered to the COVID-19 committee. As part of the deal that we reached unanimously in Parliament, I might add, the government provided bi-weekly reports on spending measures to deal with the pandemic.

Since that time, Parliament has now resumed and he has had access to the estimates and supplementary estimates. He has had access to a fall economic statement, which was 237 pages, outlining the fiscal position in spending plans of the government. He has also had an opportunity, if he wished, to review the reports of the government operations committee. Frankly, most of the information that will be contained on the fiscal track of the government is actually published online, more or less in real time, according to the spending programs.

He has had some complaints about the level of supports offered by this government, which I find curious given that at the outset of this pandemic the Conservative finance critic indicated that the Conservatives would not support big spending programs and referred to them as “big and fat” government programs. Since that time, his leader has repeatedly come out and criticized the Canada emergency response benefit, which is unthinkable given the fact that it helped sustain over nine million Canadians and helped them keep food on the table.

Other measures we put in place were the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which kept more than five million workers on the payroll in Canadian businesses; the Canada emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund, which have been enormously successful and have supported approximately one million businesses to help them literally keep the lights on and the doors open.

He is quite right to point out that the public health emergency will continue to dictate the economic outcomes of Canada. However, I will point to the fact, though he is pointing to the vaccine deployment of the United States, which is a major producer of vaccines, that Canada is third right now in the G20 of countries whose citizens have received at least one dose of the vaccine. We continue to see a record number of vaccines land week by week because, at the beginning of this pandemic, we adopted a strategy to secure the largest portfolio among our comparator countries to ensure no matter which vaccines were first to market, Canada would have access to them.

We will continue to adopt measures that will continue to protect the health and well-being of Canadian households as we also put forward measures that will protect our economy by supporting households and businesses directly.

I am looking forward very much to sharing the details of the forthcoming budget on Monday, as it will continue to support Canadian households and businesses. Most important, we will continue to operate world-class health response to this pandemic and will set the course for a recovery that will serve the interests of Canadians tomorrow and into the future.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks.

The Liberals love to talk about how they have the biggest vaccine portfolio, but they do not like talking about major delays in vaccine delivery. Now Canada is going through a third wave that is worse than the worst of what happened in the United States.

Today the New York Times reported the following:

Canada, which is struggling with a slow vaccine rollout, has recorded more cases per capita than the U.S. “Restrictions have been reimposed in many provinces, with a nightly curfew in parts of Quebec.“

Those are the facts. That is the Liberals' record on vaccines. That is an important thing to remember.

I should point out that the Conservatives supported targeted measures such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency response benefit because that was what had to be done when they were introduced. In Monday's budget, we expect the Liberals to introduce a realistic plan to get our economy back on track. We are very much looking forward to seeing that.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely false that the Conservative Party supported CERB at the outset of this pandemic. In fact, their leader continues to comment negatively about this program that kept so many households fed during the worst of this pandemic.

If he is concerned about the public health response, just hours ago that member and his entire caucus voted against Bill C-14, after delaying it for months, which included $500 million to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities and additional medical research.

To lay this squarely at the feet of the federal government is absolutely ludicrous. I will point out the fact that it is the same federal government that serves his province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and serves my province of Nova Scotia where we have single digit cases that are tied to travel.

With respect, if provincial governments continued to work with the federal government to offer a world leading public health response as we have had in Atlantic Canada, we would be in a much better place today than we are across the board. I will assure the hon. member that Monday's budget—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here to speak and hopefully get a real answer to my question that I asked just a couple of weeks ago about the sudden decision to stop the sale of frozen-at-sea spot prawns.

This is having a huge impact on coastal communities. I want to personally thank the B.C. Prawn Industry Caucus chair, Emily Orr, who has been in regular contact with my office, connecting us with local folks in the sector and keeping us updated about the concerns that are arising daily.

Since this announcement, prawn fishers and harvesters, their families and members of coastal communities have contacted every member of Parliament in British Columbia about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' decision. My colleague, the member of Parliament representing Courtenay—Alberni, and I wrote a letter to the minister imploring her to reverse the decision. This is not some big corporation. These are small family businesses, in some cases multi-generational businesses. They do not have the capacity or the resources to manage this type of change, especially when it is so sudden. It is simply not fair.

The important facts are thus: it is the practice of freezing spot prawn tails in tubs at sea and it has been going on for 50 years without any incident and without any concern. We know that prawn size limits are a market issue. They are not a conservation issue, and there is no minimum prawn size regulations for recreational or FSC harvest. The commercial prawn fishery of British Columbia has been consistently recognized, both internally by DFO and externally by a third party assessment, as a sustainable fishery. These are the facts on the record. No one seems to be questioning them, so why is DFO making this decision, and why is it making it now?

For no reason that is clear, DFO has recently reinterpreted the existing fishery regulations to assert that a tub of frozen-at-sea spot prawn tails no longer meets its requirement that fish are readily determined for inspection purposes. This is very concerning. There seems to be a redefinition of what “readily determined” is, but no one seems to know what that definition is now. With no clear reason being provided for the reinterpretation and no means of compliance for tubs of prawns frozen at sea being provided, folks are left in a significant lurch.

In my riding I am thinking of people like Kim Mikkelsen and Melissa and Joel Collier, who are all second-generation prawn harvesters. I am thinking of Shane, Mike, Ivan and Loretta, Duane, Jon, Zeke and Randy. These are people who have dedicated years, some of them over 30 years, of their life to this work. By preventing the practice of freezing prawn tails at sea, which is the primary format for domestic sales, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is effectively forcing freezing vessels to create an export-only product.

This is terrible for the stability and economy of prawn fishing operations and undermines local food security. The situation is the fault of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not the prawn fishers, and DFO must make this right and fix it. The stand-down on this decision for one year is simply not enough. Will the minister—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to answer.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of my hon. colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour.

Our government supports the precautionary approach to fisheries management, which prioritizes the health and conservation of stocks. The size limits are an important tool for managing the sustainability of the commercial spot prawn fishery and are supported by industry. A size limit allows prawns to grow and reproduce before being harvested, supporting the renewal and long-term sustainability of the stock. In addition, harvesting prawns at a large size increases the average weight and price per pound, improving economic returns for the fishery.

DFO has been working together with the spot prawn industry on market traceability and the packaging and labelling of spot prawn tails that are frozen at sea. Over the course of this work, DFO identified concerns about the packaging of spot prawn tails in tubs of frozen sea-water, a practice that only recently became common in the fishery. This practice can inhibit the ability of our enforcement officials to easily and quickly confirm compliance with the size limits.

I would like to clarify that the requirement of paragraph 36(2)(d) of the Fishery (General) Regulations to pack fish in such a way that the size can be readily determined is not a new or recent regulation, nor has DFO recently changed its interpretation of that regulation. Any person who catches a fish while commercial fishing must have it packed in a way that allows the species, number, weight and size to be readily determined. This regulation is essential to allow DFO to verify a fisher's catch and properly manage fisheries.

The department and this government recognize the importance of this issue to the prawn industry, especially at a time when international market demand for seafood products has been negatively affected by the COVID pandemic. We are committed to finding a solution to this issue that will support industry's access to local markets. That is why we have been very clear that the conservation and protection enforcement posture this season will be one of awareness and education.

Furthermore, department officials have been meeting with prawn industry representatives on this issue over the past eight weeks. Their most recent meeting was last week. DFO and industry have agreed to convene a working group that would develop and evaluate proposals for addressing this issue as quickly as possible. DFO staff will be working closely and collaboratively with the industry to explore immediate and long-term options to ensure well-managed and sustainable fisheries.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, this was a well-managed and sustainable fishery. This answer is making me think of Kim, who I mentioned earlier, a second-generation prawn fisher for over 30 years. He was there when DFO confirmed this process because fisheries officers agreed it was an easy and sustainable system. He said, “Now thawing a tub of tails for measurement, which takes less than five minutes if you run it under water, is not an option.”

Currently, many prawn fishers are making a significant part of their revenue within the local community. During the time of COVID, that local market has grown and supported these prawn fishers. This decision will destroy the local market. As Kim said, “People need the opportunity to purchase a good, local product. Prawns are a Canadian resource, people should have access to it.”

There are hundreds of spot fishermen who are telling us to listen. I hope the government will.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify that this is not a new or recent regulation, nor has DFO recently changed its interpretation of it. Any person who catches a fish or prawn while fishing commercially must package it in a way that allows for the species, number, weight and size of the fish to be readily determined.

Again, we recognize how important the prawn industry is to B.C. and to Canadians. That is why we have been very clear that the conservation and protection enforcement posture this season will be one of education and awareness.

At a recent meeting between DFO officials and industry representatives on March 10, DFO and industry agreed to form a working group to review industry proposals for addressing this issue. I am encouraged by the industry's interest in working with DFO on a speedy solution to it. DFO staff will be working closely and collaboratively with industry to explore both immediate and long-term—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:58 p.m.)