SoVote

Jun/8/23 4:49:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that his government has invested heavily in infrastructure. As with any type of investment, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Among the billions of dollars invested in infrastructure, there are the investments made in Trans Mountain. At the outset, Trans Mountain was supposed to cost $7 billion. So far, it has cost $30 billion in public money. It is a project that is bad for the environment and that is incurring losses. Everyone makes mistakes. It happens to every government. With the information we have today, if it were to be done all over again, does he think the government should make that investment, and does he think Trans Mountain was a good investment?

125 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

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

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

114 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

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

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

1632 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

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

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

99 words

Context: House Hansard - 209 - Jun/8/23

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

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

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

1486 words