Brian Masse

[Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, with regard to this, there is a consensus on the bill with regard to the provincial elements. If this is not going to be something they support, what would they offer as an alternative? It would be interesting to hear their response. If not this, then what is the next step?

[Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently came to the industry committee and noted that the Trans Mountain pipeline right now is at $22 billion and continues to absorb more public money, which the government does not have a response to for the future, other than just continuing to pay. That is what the Liberals agreed to do. The Liberals also recognized the work of Stellantis and Volkswagen in the $22-billion investment deal for batteries. That is tied to production and labour.

Is the member confident that the renewable energy and non-renewable energy projects and investments are going to be tied to labour and production so that there will be measured hours for persons who are basically paying for this project as subsidies?

[Copyright Act, October 6th, 2023]

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 dependancy, 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.

[Copyright Act, October 6th, 2023]

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?

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 6th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quote anybody in my speech, so I guess I will not even answer the question since I did not quote anybody. The member will hopefully listen to my next speech.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 6th, 2023]

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.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 6th, 2023]

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.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 6th, 2023]

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.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 6th, 2023]

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.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, October 6th, 2023]

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.