MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Abdelhaq Sari

Follow by RSS

Sari champions a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronics and appliances, his Bill C-267, a safe social media act with a minimum age of 16 and penalties for platforms, the fuel tax suspension, and federal money for Quebec culture. He argues through everyday scenes: “Let me start with a simple image” of a broken dishwasher leading to a $1,000 bill. He also backs his points with figures, announcing program costs in dollars.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
79 / 100 over 48 statements
Signal 66 / 100
Relevance 73 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 90 / 100
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9 Loses points less than most for A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 48 of 53 statements graded so far.

Statements 53

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Jonathan Rowe

“I had trouble hearing the question over the noise. But our goal is to protect our industry, jobs, and culture. We want to make sure the tax is fair.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 35 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was having a hard time speaking because of all the noise. I would ask my colleague to repeat his question, because I could not really hear him, even with the interpretation. That said, if I understood correctly, he was asking whether the tax will be broadly applied. I am simply saying that what matters to us is the objective itself, that of protecting our industry, protecting out jobs and protecting our culture. That is the goal. The most important thing is not knowing who will have to pay and who will not, but ensuring a degree of fairness. Obviously, that is what we are aiming for.

“I oppose this motion. Big foreign streaming companies make a lot of money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian shows and movies just like our own broadcasters do. This money creates good jobs and supports our economy and culture.”
  • A repeated line

    “The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise to express my clear opposition to the motion. I oppose it because I want to defend a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and our country’s economic prosperity. Despite the rhetoric evident in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, this debate is not about a so-called streaming tax. It is about whether global streaming giants, which derive substantial revenue from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the ecosystem that they benefit from every day. There is nothing radical or new about this. For decades, companies that participate in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation of Canadian programming. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production industries in the world. The motion before us today disregards that reality. It portrays contributions to Canadian programming as a burden or penalty. However, these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property and economic activity across the country. Let us be clear: Platforms are not being asked to throw their money away. They are being asked to invest in some of the best productions in the world. They cannot claim that the programming produced here is unworthy of their services. The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good, highly skilled jobs filled by Canadians in every region of the country. These are technicians, artists, producers, actors, videographers, translators and many more. The economic impact is much broader because it goes far beyond the film set. When a production comes to a community, for example in Montreal, hotel rooms are filled, visits to local restaurants increase and local workers are hired. It also generates interest in tourism and economic development for the area. Entire local economies benefit from a vibrant production sector not just in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, but also in rural, northern and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established by the Online Streaming Act is so important. The world has changed considerably since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Canadians are consuming more and more content online. This is especially true for young people. Young people tend to go directly to online content rather than broadcast content. That is a very important distinction to make, because historically, only broadcasters were required to contribute. Imposing obligations on one group but not the other was not sustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming, while foreign platforms that generate significant revenue in Canada are exempt from this requirement, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will inevitably crumble. This framework is neither unique nor radical. In fact, we see the same thing happening all over the world. European countries have adopted similar requirements, and despite these obligations, major global platforms continue to invest heavily in these markets. It is fair to ask why that is the case. It is because businesses invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities, and Canada offers all of that. It offers opportunities, infrastructure and, above all, exceptional Canadian talent. The irony is that many of the voices criticizing these requirements today will celebrate the Canadian industry’s success without ever acknowledging the policies that made it possible. We cannot separate our success from the public policy framework that has supported this growth. When domestic production shrinks, jobs disappear, creative workers leave the industry or leave the country altogether, and Canada becomes dependent on content produced abroad, without maintaining its own creative industrial base. This is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries, and our creators develop commercial intellectual property on an international scale. Film and creative studios attract foreign investment. Canada strengthens its position in a rapidly expanding global audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada stronger. It would make it far more dependent, and since we are seeking cultural sovereignty, such a dependence is something to be avoided, especially when we consider the motion under discussion today. The substance of the issue before the House is simple. Should international and multinational streaming platforms, which generate significant revenue from the Canadian public, contribute to the Canadian broadcasting and production system, or should the burden continue to fall disproportionately on Canadian broadcasters and companies alone? I believe Canadians know the answer. There should not be an imbalance. It should not be disproportionate. It should be balanced. A modern broadcasting system needs to reflect a modern market. That requires fairness, sustainability and, above all, ensuring that the economic benefits of our system continue to support Canadian jobs. Canadian production and Canadian stories must also be supported. At a time when countries around the world are in fierce competition to attract production investment and creative talent, now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. Now is the time to modernize our framework responsibly so that it reflects the realities of the digital age, while continuing to support the creators who put Canada on the map. Canada has never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada has never done that, and it will not start today. Before coming to Quebec and Canada, what most attracted me was Canadian and Quebec culture. How do we get to know this culture? Through what means? How do we hear about it? Who is the ambassador for this culture? We discover this culture through Quebec’s cultural productions, which are exported abroad, both in English and French. If we do not fully support this industry, we will not be able to encourage, retain and develop the teams responsible for these productions. As I said, Canada never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada will not start doing that today. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“This bill follows the recommendations we received. We want to make it easier for people to make complaints. We want everyone in the military to be treated fairly and equally under the law.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 20 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. What we presented today is completely in line with Justice Arbour’s recommendations and the testimony we heard in committee. Once again, we are a responsible government. We are a government that wants to make room for anyone who wants to file a complaint. We are a government that believes every member of the military should receive equal justice for themselves and everyone who works with them and where every member should also feel that justice to be equal.

“We want to keep the option to use civilian courts. They have the right skills and experience to handle these cases, and we want to make it easier for victims to file a complaint.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand my colleague’s point, but the fact remains that we do not want to remove that possibility. Once again, there is a difference in understanding on both sides of the House. I can simply say that the civilian courts have the skills, understanding and experience in this regard. Furthermore, once again, we want to work with all parties on all sides to ensure that complainants are given every opportunity to make a complaint.

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“People in the military must be able to report problems without worrying that their bosses will hurt their careers. This bill keeps the reporting system independent so victims feel safe coming forward.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 40 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not share my point of view, and our understanding of the matter differs, as he pointed out. I would like to thank him for that. In this matter, what we are saying is that someone in the same chain of command could harm a complainant’s career. We want to maintain that independence. We want to give that freedom to the person who wishes to file a complaint. We want the person to have that freedom, that comfort and that peace of mind once the complaint is filed. We are always open to suggestions, but as I said, we do not necessarily share the same understanding on both sides.

“I support this bill. It permanently moves the investigation and prosecution of military sexual assault cases to civilian courts. Victims need an independent justice system outside of the military chain of command.”
  • A repeated line

    “All new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been brought in the civilian justice system.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill that means a great deal to me, a bill focused on issues that transcend partisan divides. Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a practical, structured and too long-awaited answer to realities that we can no longer ignore. I am rising to speak to an issue that affects the public trust, the dignity of the women and men who bravely serve their country and the very integrity of our institutions: a profound and lasting cultural transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces. For too long, members of the armed forces, especially but not exclusively women, have carried a silent burden. Courageous testimony has brought to light disturbing realities: sexual misconduct, abuse of power, a climate of fear and, at times, a sense of persistent impunity. This testimony is not an exception to the rule. It is the rule, and it points to a systemic problem. Ad hoc solutions are not enough to address a systemic problem. What it takes is a profound, thoughtful, courageous and coherent transformation enshrined in law. That is exactly what Bill C‑11 proposes, supported by recommendation 5 of the Hon. Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice. Bill C-11 proposes significant amendments to the National Defence Act. It aims to modernize a military justice system that, in some respects, has failed to keep pace with the changing values and expectations of Canadian society. Basically, it strengthens accountability, reinforces institutional independence and ensures compliance with the standards of fairness that Canadians expect. As introduced, Bill C-11 removes the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual assault offences and gives that jurisdiction to civilian authorities. This is not a new approach. It is in keeping with the interim directive adopted in December 2021 based on Justice Arbour’s interim recommendation. Since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been shifted to the civilian justice system. The directive has proven its worth. Bill C-11 enshrines it in law and makes it permanent. Any attempt to undermine or undo the progress made over the past five years would constitute an unacceptable step backwards and a direct affront to the victims and survivors who have had the courage to speak out. The Liberal government has chosen to take action, not with symbolic gestures, but with a clear and measurable commitment to bring about lasting change. This has resulted in the strengthening of independent report mechanisms, improved support for victims, greater transparency in disciplinary processes and a renewed commitment to accountability. Let us be clear, however, that changing an institutional culture cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires time, consistency, and above all the political courage to challenge structures deeply rooted in an institution’s history—in this case, the military. It is in this context that Justice Arbour’s report marked a turning point. This report did not merely identify the flaws, it charted a course forward, a demanding but necessary one. Among its recommendations, recommendation five stands out for its scope and the clarity of the message it sends to all of Canadian society. Some might wonder why the transfer to civilian courts is so fundamental. The answer is simple, but it touches on the very essence of what we mean by justice. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done independently and impartially. However, in a system where the chain of command plays a central role in every aspect of a service member’s professional life, there exists a structural perception of a conflict of interest whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not. For a victim, this perception alone may be enough to discourage any reporting. Imagine what it is like for someone who has to report an assault in a context where their career, performance reviews and professional future depend directly or indirectly on the very organization that is handling their complaint. This is not just a procedural matter. It is a matter of fundamental trust, and without trust, there can be no justice. By transferring these cases to the civilian system, we are introducing a crucial institutional distance and ensuring genuine independence, which strengthens the credibility of the process and sends a clear message to victims that their voices matter, their safety is a priority and their cases will be handled with all the rigour and impartiality they deserve. To those who cite the unique nature of the military context as a reason to maintain internal jurisdiction, I would say that, when it comes to serious criminal offences, especially sexual offences, the highest standards of independence and expertise must prevail. The civilian system has these capabilities. It has the necessary resources and specialized training, and, above all, it has the experience required to handle these cases with the sensitivity and rigour they require. A strong chain of command is not about absolute control. It is about trust. Trust is built on justice, actual justice and perceived justice. Transparency is also important for building trust. Above all, responsibility and accountability are essential. Enshrining recommendation five in law does not weaken our military institutions; it strengthens them. It recognizes that certain functions need to be performed outside the chain of command to ensure their integrity. Integrity is the very foundation of any trustworthy institution. I will even repeat that statement by saying that integrity is the sine qua non of any trustworthy institution. A strong military is not only defined by its ability to defend our borders; it is also defined by the respect it affords to each and every one of its members. It is also defined by its ability and, above all, its willingness to evolve. In conclusion, refusing to change means accepting that the same injustices will persist. We have a collective responsibility here to reject that. Today, we have a real opportunity, an opportunity to transcend partisan lines, an opportunity to turn our commitments into action, an opportunity to send a clear message that dignity, security and justice are non-negotiable. Behind every reform are individuals, women and men who have chosen to serve this country with courage and dedication. They deserve more than our gratitude. They deserve a safe environment, a fair system and an institution that reflects the values they uphold. That is precisely what we have a responsibility to build here.

Private Members' Business ·

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

In response to a question from Bruce Fanjoy

“People want this bill to do more. I invite them to share their ideas in committee to help make it stronger.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, with my remaining 25 seconds, I would like to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Carleton. Yes, I met with several stakeholders, including Option consommateurs. People want to go further with this bill. It is great that people want to collaborate and work together. I encourage those people to participate in the study of the bill in committee in order to make the bill stronger.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I worked with the government to write this bill to make electronics and home appliances last longer and be easier to repair. A committee will now study it and work with consumer groups to make it even better for families, small businesses, and the environment.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see the support of my colleagues today. I can say that not only do I have the government’s support, but I also worked with the government on creating this bill. I would add that it will be studied in committee. There are other stakeholders that I have met with, including Option consommateurs, Protégez-Vous and other people who want to work in committee to make this bill stronger for families, the environment, our SMEs and our industry.

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“Quebec has a great law that stops companies from making appliances and electronics break on purpose. This bill is a starting point so people across all of Canada can have those same rules.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that is not a good question; it is a great question. Quebec’s legislation is inspiring. It prohibits planned obsolescence, but it goes even further. It creates a warranty of good working order, requires replacement parts to be available and also provides for penalties. That is great, but Quebec is acting as a province, within its areas of jurisdiction. We are acting within ours. Let me be clear: Bill C-267 is not an end point; it is a starting point that we have to work from to ensure that all of Canada, not only Quebec, can enjoy the same standards everywhere, be it Alberta or Quebec. The goal is to have the federal government work within its areas of jurisdiction and offer this option to the other provinces.

In response to a question from Arnold Viersen

“I want this bill to stop companies from making products that break quickly. It should also force companies to tell buyers how long an item can be repaired, how long parts will be sold for it, and what warranty it has.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very interesting question. Yes, we want a bill that will help combat planned obsolescence, but that is not all. We also want it to be mandatory to provide consumers with information. When a consumer wants to make a purchase, they should be able to choose between two devices: the one that comes with the most warranties or the one whose replacement parts will be available for the longest time, the one that can be repaired for the longest time. What he says is true, then, but it is not the extent of it. There are other provisions in the bill.

“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to committee. It creates a national plan to make electronics and home appliances last longer and be easier to fix. Too many people are forced to buy expensive new products because repair parts or manuals are not available. Fixing things instead of throwing them away saves families money and cuts down on waste.”
Official Hansard

moved that Bill C-267, An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that I have the support of the member for Carleton. It is with a great sense of responsibility and much hope for the future that I rise today at second reading of my first bill here in the House of Commons, Bill C-267, which seeks to establish a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and home appliances. This the first bill I am introducing in the house, as I just said, and I am proud to table it on behalf of families in Bourassa and Montreal and all Canadians, who deserve better when it comes to their appliances. Let me start with a simple image. Someone comes home and their dishwasher no longer works. They call a technician who says that the part is no longer available or that the cost of the repair exceeds that of a new device. They are then forced to pay $500 or $1,000, sometimes more, to replace a device that technically could have been repaired. Millions of Canadians experience this situation every year. This is not an accident. It is the result of an economic model that favours replacement over repair and leaves consumers without information, without choice and often without recourse. This bill seeks to change that. In the example I just gave, maybe the part simply no longer exists, or the information or the repair procedure is not available. It is very unclear. It is getting very difficult for the repair person to do the repair. As I said, sometimes it costs more to repair an appliance than to replace it even if a person would technically prefer to keep it running rather than throw it out and buy another. This bill would change that. This bill is about giving consumers more transparency, more durability and more repairability. This bill is important because today, too many Canadian consumers buy appliances and electronic devices without knowing how long they will last, whether spare parts will be available or how long software support will be provided. This state of affairs is costing our families dearly. It forces people to replace appliances prematurely when they could otherwise be repaired. It also increases the amount of electronic waste, one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. Right now too many Canadians are forced to replace products that could and should be repaired. That also contributes to increased electronic waste, which is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world. As I said, this bill would make a real difference because it calls on the federal government to establish a national framework to inform consumers and improve the durability and repairability of appliances sold here in Canada. This approach is economical, environmentally friendly and pro-consumer. It is economical because an appliance that lasts longer costs less over time. It is environmentally friendly because repairing something rather than throwing it out reduces waste and conserves resources. Lastly, this approach is pro-consumer because it restores a better balance between manufacturers on the one hand and people on the other. This is good for families, good for the environment and good for a more responsible economy. I want to talk numbers. I want to talk hard facts. Electronic waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. Every year, millions of tonnes of devices that are still functional or repairable are thrown away. In Canada, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of electronic equipment are thrown away annually, a significant proportion of which could and should have been repaired had the parts, information and support been available. The problem is not just environmental, nor is it merely an economic issue; it is also a question of fairness. When I say fairness, I am obviously referring to fairness between the manufacturer on one side and the consumer on the other. It is also a matter of purchasing power. At a time when the cost of living is the number one concern for Canadian households and families are struggling to make ends meet, the forced replacement of appliances represents an unfair burden. This is not a luxury. A fridge is essential. A dishwasher, a stove, a television, a computer, a smart phone—all these appliances are now essential to daily life. Our digital economy has also become essential. Anyone who buys one of these devices today never knows how long it will last. No one knows whether replacement parts will be available in five years’ time. No one knows whether the manufacturer will provide the software support after two years. There is a fundamental asymmetry of information between manufacturers, who know everything, and consumers, who know almost nothing. This asymmetry comes at a high cost to Canadian families. On top of that is a phenomenon that experts refer to as planned obsolescence. It means that devices are deliberately designed to not last and to not be repaired, in order to force consumers to replace them. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a well-documented reality, recognized by regulators around the world, one that is currently being addressed through legislation in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada must act, and that is exactly what Bill C-267 proposes. In addition, there is a phenomenon that specialists call planned obsolescence, with devices deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable, to force replacement. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented reality recognized by regulators around the world. I want to be clear about the nature of this bill, what it is proposing and what it is not proposing. This is not a rigid set of regulations being imposed on the industry from the top down. This is not a government telling manufacturers what to do in minute detail. It is certainly not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. This bill establishes a national framework that is flexible, progressive, collaborative and based on extensive consultation with the provinces and territories, industry and consumer advocacy groups. Specifically, here is what the bill provides. It mandates the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework, in consultation with his provincial and territorial counterparts, that includes measures focused on minimal product durability, ensuring that appliances last a reasonable amount of time; repairability, so that consumers can have their appliances repaired using readily available parts, tools and information; the availability of spare parts, to ensure that manufacturers do not stop making them prematurely; access to technical documentation, so that independent repair technicians can work their trade; software support, so that updates are not used to render appliances that are still in perfectly good working order obsolete; informative labelling, so that consumers know how long their appliances will last before they buy them. This national framework will have to be tabled in both chambers of Parliament within the next few months. Five years later, its effectiveness will be reviewed and a report will be submitted to Parliament. It is a measured, transparent approach that respects parliamentary processes and would give the government the tools to act without presuming solutions before consulting all stakeholders and parties. Canada is not starting from scratch, as I mentioned earlier. It is part of a global movement that has been gaining momentum over the past few years. In June 2024, the European Union adopted a directive on the right to repair, which covers a wide variety of appliances, including smart phones, tablets, washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators. This EU directive requires manufacturers to make spare parts available, to provide technical documentation to independent repair people and to not impede repairs through software updates. Since 2021, the United Kingdom has been imposing similar requirements regarding the availability of spare parts for several categories of household appliances. In the United States, more than 20 states have passed or are in the process of passing laws on the right to repair with remarkable bipartisan support. Both Republicans and Democrats see this as a matter of consumer freedom and local economic competitiveness. In practical terms, this means that large international manufacturers that sell their goods in Canada are already adapting to these new standards in their other markets. I am talking here about major manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Whirlpool and Apple. They have all announced programs to provide access to spare parts under international regulatory pressure. That means that adapting would impose very little burden on these large manufacturers here in Canada, since they are already meeting these requirements elsewhere. This bill is not ahead of its time; it is catching up. I want to be very clear: This bill is not an end in itself. It is not an objective we want to achieve. It is a serious starting point. It provides a legislative foundation that will help move the debate forward and that will allow us to hear from experts, consumer groups and industry stakeholders so that the bill can be strengthened in committee. Who will benefit from this bill? First and foremost, it will benefit Canadian families. Second, it will benefit small repair businesses, those local shops that are often run by immigrants who come to this country. They are often craftspeople or tradespeople who are currently being deprived of access to parts. Third, it will benefit the environment. For every device that is repaired instead of replaced, a natural resource is preserved. Fourth, it will benefit the industry itself. This framework will deliver a more transparent market, clear standards and a level playing field for all manufacturers. I will end where I began, by talking about Canadian families. Every day, in the riding of Bourassa, in the streets of Montreal North or Ahuntsic, I meet ordinary folks who are facing tough choices: seniors who have to choose between getting their fridge repaired and buying a new one; young families going into debt to replace a phone that could have been repaired; small business owners losing contracts because they cannot get the parts they need. This bill sends them the message that we see them, we hear them and we are taking action. This is not a partisan or ideologically motivated bill. It is a common-sense bill that is based on the reality of Canadian families, supported by a global movement and built on collaboration. I am reaching out to my colleagues in the House, from all political parties and all regions, and asking them to vote to send this bill to committee, where we will be able to study it, improve it, hear from witnesses and make it stronger together. Repairing instead of replacing, informing instead of ignoring, collaborating instead of imposing: that is the spirit behind this bill. That is the spirit I am bringing to the House today. This should not be a partisan issue—

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Life has gotten more expensive for Canadians. Our budget and economic update will build a stronger economy and lower costs. I want the minister to explain how.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, Canadians have had to adapt to a rapidly changing world, one that is unpredictable, more complex, more unstable and, for many, more expensive. Last fall, on this side of the House, we responded to these changes with a solid budget, budget 2025. It is a plan to build a stronger and more resilient economy, leading to lower costs for Canadians. Yesterday’s economic update is the next step. It is the next step in really continuing the work. I have a question for the Minister of Government Transformation. Could he explain—

Statements by Members ·

Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord

“I want to congratulate a volunteer centre in my riding on its 40th anniversary. I am thanking its volunteers for helping seniors, newcomers, and our community.”
  • Member's statement

    Signal 41 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “On behalf of the residents of Bourassa.”

    Said 5 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 40th anniversary of the Centre d’action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord. For four decades, the Centre d’action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord has been the heart and soul of our neighbourhood. It supports our seniors, helps newcomers integrate, mobilizes volunteers and builds the bonds of solidarity that make the riding of Bourassa stronger and more inclusive. The Centre d’action bénévole de Montréal-Nord embodies the very best of civic engagement: people who choose to get involved, not out of obligation, but by choice and based on their convictions. Without these volunteers, without these men and women, many cultural and sports activities simply could not take place. On behalf of the residents of Bourassa, I sincerely thank them for their commitment, and I wish the Centre d’action bénévole de Montréal-Nord a happy 40th anniversary.