Arnold Viersen · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

International Trade

2026-06-11

“You changed the rules to help your corporate friends avoid reporting. Now the US is threatening our trade deal because you won't fight forced labor. Why are you risking our trade deal to help your friends?”

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“The company gave big bonuses to executives while building zero kilometers of rail. I want my colleague to talk about interest rates and money affecting homebuilding. How is the government making those things worse?”

Government Orders

Main Estimates, 2026-27

2026-06-08

“I'm upset about job losses in my riding. I want to spend $200 million on a space launch site there instead of Nova Scotia. Maybe comparing it to famous Cape Canaveral will help justify that.”

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

2026-05-25

“I want the government to make trade deals with India have human rights rules. The government should punish bad people and talk to India about being nice.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I assure members that I only have one petition to present today. I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India. The petitioners are saying that, according to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, various actors are supporting and enforcing sectarian policies that seek to establish India as a Hindu state. The petitioners say that Christians in India are being targeted by extremists vandalizing their churches, attacking church workers, and threatening and humiliating their congregations. They also note that Indian Muslims are at risk of genocide, assault and sexual violence. The petitioners are asking that the government ensure that any and all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that the government promote a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

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

2026-04-30

“I think this bill tries to do too much by making manufacturers build products that last longer. Government over-regulates products like dishwashers, so they break faster. Now this bill wants to fix that by layering on more rules. I wish the bill directly required products to last a certain time instead of leaving details to regulators. But I'm also not sure this should be a federal law at all.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-267. As I mentioned earlier, this bill seems to be trying to boil the ocean. It is a framework bill. It attempts to do a laudable thing, to make it so the products that we buy have a shelf life that lasts a long time and they do not quickly end up in the landfill. Now, I have a cousin. I have a lot of cousins, but I have a particular cousin who has an expression, and I always think it is interesting. He says, “That is pure landfill.” Basically, he is saying that something is a poor quality product, and if someone purchases it, they might as well just take it straight to the landfill because, by the time they put it to work, it will not do the thing they need it to do or it is poor quality. I always think of that when we talk about this particular bill. Life is generally a series of trade-offs. Particularly when people are purchasing a consumer product, there are a lot of trade-offs. It is an interesting thing to me. Earlier today we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that, when Liberals see something moving, they tax it. When it is still moving, they regulate it, and when it stops moving, they subsidize it. This is essentially the subsidizing part of that equation. Over the years, we have seen Liberals pile on requirements, one after the other, whether it be around water use, energy use or products that can be used. Now we see that products do not necessarily last as long as they used to. Take a dishwasher, for example. With all of the energy requirements and all of the water requirements that have gone into them, it seems that, when someone buys a dishwasher nowadays, it does not advertise how well it does the dishes, it advertises how little water and how little energy it uses. I actually want a dishwasher that does the dishes. The other thing is the dishwasher that my mom had seemed to last for 30 years, and the dishwashers I buy seem to last for 10 years. Members can see the issues that we have now. Here we are. Consumers are frustrated with the fact that they have an expectation that the products they buy do not seem to be lasting as long as they expect them to last, nor can they get the parts for them. This is reality. As the government has layered on regulation after regulation, or this or that code, it has not necessarily been the market that has driven that. It has been regulation. Now we are seeing that the government is going to put a solution for all of these created problems on the back end of it and say, “Oh, now manufacturers have to make sure their product lasts a particular length of time.” There is another bunch of problems around this as well. Planned obsolescence is something that drives me crazy. I come from the automotive world and am an auto mechanic by trade. With older vehicles that had the 12-valve Cummins, for example, there was no planned obsolescence for it. It outlasted the vehicle they put it in by a factor of three or four. If the car or truck that engine was in rusted away, which would be after about 10 years, that engine was taken out and moved into another vehicle. They can often been seen for sale, and the pickup truck that it is in is very worn out. They take the engine out and put it in another piece of equipment, because that engine did not have planned obsolescence. It was built it to last, and it lasts. Again, we see more concerns around efficiency and other concerns. On the flip side of it, these other products that do not last long end up in the landfill. That Cummins engine, probably designed in about 1990, is still operating, and because it is so good, it will be taken out of the pickup truck it is in and stuck in another piece of equipment, saving it from the landfill. Members can rest assured, it will continue on. I have a lot of expectation and no concern, because that technology has been around probably since the 1970s, that the engine will do another 30 years in whatever piece of equipment it is in. Because it is so well built, it is very well supported. There are a dozen companies that support it with aftermarket parts. Because it is so popular and well known, there are a dozen companies that copy it, build other pieces for it, build attachments and these kinds of things. These are all great things. We see this also with airplane technology. A lot of airplanes are flying around today with 1930s technology in their engines, because the industry figured it out. The progression of aircraft went from 1912 to the 1930s, and that is when it really dialed in on what an airplane engine ought to look like. Since then, only minor tweaks have been made to that. Because of that, there are a host of companies that work hard on creating a product that is well serviced and lasts a long time. It does not ever really end up in the landfill, because they just keep rebuilding it and keep working it over. The two examples I gave, airplane engines and Cummins engines, are of things that were designed entirely by the market. They were not constrained by a lot of government regulation whatsoever. That reality does exist. We see the bureaucratic growth of the government. I am going to talk particularly about the appliances the bill is trying to capture. I do not necessarily think there is opposition to putting in place a mandatory minimum on how long they should last, a benchmark for warranty, essentially. That has been done in the automotive industry. There used to be a regulation on small collision repairs. If someone ran into a pole at less than 30 kilometres an hour, there was a test for that. If that happened and the repair had to be made, it had to cost less than $2,500 or less than $300, depending on where one was in the world. It was helpful that the government made this benchmark saying that as a result of a certain kind of a collision, it should not cost more than a certain amount to repair a vehicle. There is the capability of doing that kind of thing. I wish the bill had contemplated many of those kinds of things. We can put in law, and the House can be responsible for it, that a certain product should last a certain length of time. We did that with the airlines. We debated whether that was a good idea or not, but we could have done it with this bill as well, saying what the timelines for consumer products ought to be, and we could have built a schedule for that. We can do all that in the House. However, this bill is much like the Liberals' approach to a lot of things. They get a great idea, such as going to space, or whatever it happens to be, but then they do not put the details in the bill. They do not do the hard work of governing the country. They say to just trust them; they will get the minister on it. The minister will use their pen and decide all the things that need to go into it, working with this or that particular stakeholder. Parliament is dedicated to building the laws of this country. I understand that a bill to regulate a whole bunch of particular products might be a large bill, but that has not stopped the government before from introducing large bills. That could be, but I do not understand. Last, sometimes the government gets out of its lane a bit when it comes to provincial jurisdiction. I know that a number of colleagues have raised concerns around provincial jurisdiction, that this bill would perhaps cross some of those lines. We are concerned about that as well. Perhaps the issue should be left to the provinces. I know that in particular when it came to tractor regulations, there was—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“This bill is too broad. Focus on planned obsolescence. Fix that problem without creating endless new rules.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-04-30

“I'm filling time by talking about my former staff member's engagement. But let's get back to the topic. Alberta already has a sovereign wealth fund called the heritage fund. It was created when Alberta was making a lot of money from oil and now it's worth $32 billion. I want my colleague to say something about that.”

“Where's the money for this fund supposed to come from? The Liberals spent it all on deficits.”

Oral Questions

Privilege

2026-04-29

“I'm accusing the Minister of International Trade of breaking rules to hide forced labor and modern slavery by Canadian companies. The minister was required to report this to Parliament but didn't for three years. I'm calling it a cover-up.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this morning I gave notice with respect to the question of privilege I am raising today. The question arises from the reporting obligations of the Minister of International Trade, specifically the requirement under the order in council that annual reports be tabled in each House of Parliament by the minister. I am honoured to be one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. We just held a parliamentary briefing with the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic from UBC. At that briefing, we learned from the former ombudsman that the Minister of International Trade has failed to fulfill this obligation to table annual reports from the Canadian ombudsman for responsible enterprise. Not only was one report not reported, but three reports have not been reported. I want to be clear. What we are discussing here is the annual reports of an entity empowered by the Crown to respond to potential victims of exploitation, forced labour and modern slavery being committed by Canadian companies operating in other countries. I went to the CORE web page to verify this for myself yesterday, and the last annual report tabled in Parliament was the 2021-22 report tabled on March 22, 2023, by the minister. The former ombudsman confirmed that she sent the 2022-23 annual report to the minister in November 2023. She also confirmed to me that she provided a draft report to the interim ombudsperson at the end of her term in April 2024. That report has never been tabled in Parliament, nor has the 2024-25 report that would have been completed by the interim ombudsperson. Furthermore, the minister has left this position unfilled for over a year, and I doubt we will see a report later this year. In accordance with Order in Council P.C. 2019-1323, dated September 6, 2019, which establishes the mandate of the CORE, section 13 states: (1) The Ombudsperson is to submit an annual report to the Minister on their activities. (2) The Minister is to table [that] annual report in each House of Parliament. (3) The Ombudsperson is to publish the annual report after it is tabled in Parliament. This raises concerns regarding the compliance with this order in council, which imposes a clear legal and fiduciary obligation on the minister to table these reports in both Houses each year. If the minister does not table these reports in the House of Commons, the CORE cannot release them publicly. Furthermore, the failure to ensure timely tabling of these reports limits our ability as members to access this information, required for effective parliamentary oversight of an entity established by the Government of Canada. It also prevents members from engaging the House's established process for scrutiny of these tabled documents. I recognize that orders in council are not statutes, but they do have force in law. Orders in council are indeed a form of subordinate legislation, deriving their power from a statute, an act of Parliament. In other words, they are legal instruments made by the Governor in Council pursuant to a statutory authority and take legal effect when signed by the Governor General. There is a clear precedent in supporting this proposition that the failure to comply with the statutory tabling obligations may engage the privileges of this House. On February 3, 1992, a question of privilege was raised concerning the failure of a minister of finance to table order in council appointments in the House of Commons required under the order of the Customs Tariff. In the ruling on February 5, 1992, at pages 6425 to 6427 of the Debates, Speaker Fraser affirmed, “It is through tabling that Members are officially apprised of the existence of a document....it is not done lightly but is done for a serious purpose.” Speaker Fraser went on to state that “the tabling of documents...is one of the procedures on which hinges the ability of Members to discharge their functions” and recognized that the failure to table these required documents may impede both members and the standing committees in carrying out their mandate under Standing Order 108(1). Speaker Fraser also noted that the House is the appropriate forum to address the deficiencies arising from non-compliance with statutory tabling requirements. In that instance, the Chair declined to find a prima facie breach because the matter had already been taken up by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. That circumstance does not exist in the present case. No committee has been seized, however, with the failure to table the CORE annual reports. As a result, members have been deprived of access to these reports that would have otherwise been subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the House's established procedures, including the referral mechanism contemplated under Standing Order 32(5), which depends on proper tabling in the House. A further ruling, in 2001, similarly addressed a failure to comply with statutory tabling obligations. In that case, the Chair observed that where statutory deadlines exist, the prima facie finding of contempt would be more readily supportable, as the members' ability to scrutinize the government's action is directly affected by compliance with tabling requirements. The Chair also emphasized that the tabling obligations are central to Parliament's ability to function. Unlike that circumstance, the present case involves a recurring statutory obligation to table annual reports. The concern here is not an isolated delay but an ongoing failure to ensure that Parliament is kept informed through the mechanism that it established. In this situation, I would remind members, we are discussing annual reports addressing potential situations of exploitation, forced labour and modern-day slavery being committed by Canadian companies operating in other countries. I am sure every member of the House would agree that we need to have access to these annual reports, which the minister is obligated to table in the House of Commons and has failed to do for three years. The effect of this failure is to limit members' access to information required for effective parliamentary oversight of an entity established by the Government of Canada and to frustrate the operation of the House's own procedures for examining these reports. It is on this basis that I submit that this matter engages the privileges of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I respectfully ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege, at which point I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Canadian Space Launch Act

2026-04-28

“I was talking about space launch corruption. Marie Lumsden helped expose the directors of a corrupt company.”

“I'm talking about a bunch of Liberal scandals to make them look bad. I don't want to spend money on this space launch pad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park for sharing his time with me today. I am surprised the Liberals have chosen to bring up space exploration today, given the fact that over the last week, we have seen the concrete pad out in Nova Scotia. I am sure we have all seen the picture by now. I want to thank Marie Lumsden from the Hamilton Examiner for the great article that has given me the information for this speech here today. The Liberals are true to form. We have seen over and over again where they have worked very hard to enrich their friends. We have seen the clam scam. We have seen the ArriveCan app. We have seen the WE Charity scandal. We have seen the Chuck Rifici and the marijuana “pump and dump” schemes. We have seen the Brookfield stock go up over time. We have seen the green slush fund. We have seen the Randy Boissonnault scandal. We have seen this over and over again. In the fallout of the news being reported around this gravel driveway and a concrete pad out in Nova Scotia, and a government contract for $200 million, the government decides this is the week we should be talking about space exploration, or participation in space. I am excited that Canada participates in space. I remember growing up being super proud of the Canadarm. Does everyone remember the Canadarm? I remember being excited about that, going to the Edmonton Space and Science Centre, watching the spacewalk on the IMAX and things like that, and also about the International Space Station and our participation in that. The Liberals want us to talk about that today, about our Canadian participation, how we should be so proud that Canada participates in space and that we should have our own Cape Canaveral. What we saw in the news last week is no Cape Canaveral. It is a concrete pad. Now, I poured a bit of concrete last summer, and I can say that concrete is pretty expensive by the cubic metre. It was about $300 a cubic metre back home. I can imagine that is a pretty expensive place, and the company is paying $13,500 a year to lease the land that this pad is on. We know that. I would give them a generous amount. I have paid a few contractors in my time for concrete as well, so I will be generous with it. Let us say some Caterpillar work was done there and some gravel trucks came and brought some gravel. It cost maybe $1 million. I think that is a pretty generous amount. Everybody made some good money building that pad. The Canadian government could have done that. The Canadian government could have leased the land from the Nova Scotia government, spent $1 million and built the concrete pad. I think that would be an acceptable thing for us to have done, given that the Canadian government owns most of the airports in Canada. I do not know if everyone knows this, but most of the airports in Canada are owned by the Canadian government. Then private companies, generally not-for-profits, operate these places, and they pay the Canadian government for the operations. Members can imagine being flabbergasted that this has been brought up here, that we are paying for the privilege of being able to maybe one day use this concrete pad to launch a rocket somewhere. We are paying $20 million a year for the privilege of maybe being able to use that concrete pad. That is not all. The Liberals really know how to make their friends happy: by backdating this contract a whole year and paying them back an entire year. Marie Lumsden looked into some of the people involved. Lo and behold, a Liberal premier is on the board of directors of this company. Wow, look at that, Liberals feeding their friends. Members may think that is kind of interesting. There is a partnership. All of this was brought up by the partnership from—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“The other party is very bad. They won't let us talk or ask questions. They will shut us down soon because they can. What do you think about that?”