Karim Bardeesy · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I want to defend the streaming and media subsidies this government is giving to various groups, including some in my riding. We should keep spending taxpayers' money on the arts to support Canadian culture. And the Opposition party doesn't understand how today's arts industry works, or how trade works.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today because it gives us an opportunity to really celebrate the cultural productions, the musicians, the directors, the TV producers, the workers and the makeup artists, all the people who participate in this rich cultural economy that we have in Canada. I will also speak to what is happening in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. The motion also gives me an opportunity to speak to some trends I have been seeing in the party opposite, over my time in this chamber of just over a year, when it comes to trade issues and to cultural issues. With respect to trade, there really are two kinds of things that we generally see. There is the misread of the trade situation, whereby the party opposite either wants to go back to some historic past that does not exist anymore, as in the encouragement to bring back the auto pact in its complete form in a way that is not resonant with the current state of negotiations, the current state of the auto sector, or wants to capitulate. In this case, I know the party opposite was opposed to the Online Streaming Act, but it is recommending that we simply give up the real gains that we have made through mechanisms like those in the Online Streaming Act and through all the kinds of things that we need to do to build ourselves and our sovereignty up in this moment of real challenge for Canada. I believe there is a misread of the trade situation, but there is also a misread of culture and the way culture is generated in Canada. Artists do not just emerge fully out of whole cloth, ready to take on the world without any support whatsoever. I noted that my colleague from York—Durham made mention of Lucy Maud Montgomery, and I appreciated my colleague from Hamilton's very spirited embrace of Lucy Maud Montgomery and her work, but it is also important to note that Lucy Maud Montgomery was writing at a very different time, when cultural communications travelled differently, when books travelled differently and when curricula were designed differently. We are now in an era of very rapid digital communications. We need to change with the times, and we need to have the cultural assets that we have built up and convert them for a new generation. I would just add regarding Anne of Green Gables, Lucy Maud Montgomery's work, that it has continued to prosper in Canada in part because of the mechanisms we use to support digital culture. There is both the 1985 CBC series of the novels and the later Anne with an E series, which ran for three seasons. I know my daughter and my family were very big fans of that. Those cultural products, which came out of a place of strong Canadian culture, were generated from the kinds of supports that have been embraced and furthered on this side of the House, whether it is support for the CBC or, indeed, supports through mechanisms like those, if not in that particular case, in the Online Streaming Act. Artists do not emerge out of whole cloth, ready to take on the world. Artists are nurtured by community, and taxpayer funds are important for that. Also, where we can, the benefit of a policy that has large American multinational companies play their role in supporting this production is very important. Indeed, the mechanisms that we have in place are working. I want to quote from the CEO of the Canadian Media Producers Association, Reynolds Mastin, on the release of its recent annual report on the state of media production in Canada. He said, “The Canadian production industry has established itself as a great partner for foreign production, and with the promised investments from the Online Streaming Act, we'll see a boost in Canadian content production, reversing the downward trend of recent years”. In the report, CMPA also referred to foreign production activity, a set of activities that we are being told by the Conservatives is at constant existential risk, as actually being up 9.8% in 2025. The value of film and production in Canada, from the CMPA report, was $10.2 billion, and the industry is responsible for 181,360 jobs. This is a sign of a growing sector, a sector that is already mature and a sector that has excellence. This is a sector that not only produces original content but also produces a whole set of workers and capacities that producers and investors, including American investors, want to participate in. I was recently at the launch of The Testaments. It is a new Hulu series that is being filmed based on the work of Margaret Atwood, a great Canadian cultural producer and a great Canadian author from Toronto. At that launch, the producers, both American and Canadian, lauded the capacity, expertise and talent that exists in Canada to put on this production, including the makeup artists, the costumers and the builders of the film production sets. I have to add Mrs. Huizenga thrift shop to that list, which is in Toronto's Junction area of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, which was featured in The Testaments tv show. The story that the Conservatives are telling is representative of neither the current state of affairs nor the excitement that Canadians feel about the cultural productions that are being produced here. It is a misread to say that artists emerge whole cloth, ready to take on the world without any of the kinds of supports that we, on this side of the House, know are necessary. We know that different kinds of artists need support, for example, if they come from different identity groups or speak different languages. We know that Canadian companies need to grow and to have the opportunity to play on an equal playing field. We know that Canadian producers want to partner with American companies, but we also need that opportunity to have the resources come in to do that work. In this era of streaming, there is an increasingly complex dynamic between streamers and creators. There is a whole set of intermediaries who have now been displaced from our arts and culture sector, including the A and R people, many independent producers, local television stations and even video stores. The intermediaries, who help create those connections between artists and the very large producers, are starting to be displaced and are starting to adapt. Creators are having to take on more of the work themselves, of managing their careers and building up their resources, so they are playing the role of not only part-time artist but also part-time business person. Creators are ready and willing to do that work, but they do need some help and some support. The Online Streaming Act, like the Online News Act, is a very important part of the mechanism that gives the creators in Canada the opportunities to participate with revenues from very profitable companies that Canadians embrace and that Canadians subscribe to by the millions. This allegation that it is a tax on Canadians is purely fictional. It is an imaginary assertion. The payments that are being made under the Online Streaming Act and have been made under the Online News Act go to real benefits and to real creators who are creating products. Those subscriptions that I talk about have not changed. I want to talk about some of the beneficiaries of the complete set of funding mechanisms that we have in Canada in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, including through vehicles such as Telefilm Canada; the Canada Media Fund; Canada Council for the Arts; CBC, which is constantly denigrated on the other side of the House; and yes, some of the revenues from the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act. There are the creators like Kunsang Kyirong, who created 100 Sunset, which won the Discovery Award at the Toronto International Film Festival and was filmed in my riding. There are creators in west Toronto like Matt Johnson, the creator of Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie and, of course, the very beloved movie, BlackBerry. On the TV side, we have tons of workers and unions, like IATSE, which is supported by its international vice-president, John Lewis in my riding. I have heard from so many cultural workers in my riding about the real and essential need to support Canadian cultural producers through mechanisms like those in the Online Streaming Act. There are musicians like Charlotte Cornfield, who has launched her recent album to great acclaim, and musicians like Daniel Lanois, who has a studio in my riding. They are all part of an ecosystem where some are internationally renowned. Some came up through America, and some through Europe. Many came up through Canada. They all benefited from the connections and resources we have created through the CBC, through the revenues that we help them get attached to with things like the Online Streaming Act and through resources like Telefilm, the Media Fund and the Canada Council for the Arts. It is part of an entire ecosystem that supports creators. If we are really here to support creators, to say that creators are essential to telling Canadian stories and that those stories are essential to Canadian sovereignty, then we need to have a way of bringing them from where they are to where we know they can shine on the world stage. That is done through mechanisms like this. It is not done by denigrating the real work that comes out of funds like this. For that reason, I will be opposing the motion.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to look like I care about black creators. If I talk about this policy maybe it will make all my viewers and all Canadians happy.”

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-25

“I want to cheer for a program that spends money in my riding. I want taxpayers to spend more money. More money for my program.”

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-08

“I'm throwing out a lot of big numbers to make things sound good. The economy is strong! Ignore the parts that don't look as good. The opposition should support us spending even more money.”

“I want Canadians to know that our government is helping young people. We have apprenticeships and summer jobs.”

Oral Questions

Youth

2026-05-07

“This government is spending a lot of money. That makes them look good. They visited a university program once. All those graduates have jobs now. The government thinks they should get all the credit. The government says nice things about some tech companies. But they don't say how much all this costs taxpayers.”

Oral Questions

Automotive Industry

2026-05-06

“Look what the government spending bought us! A whole list of programs and announcements and factories. The boss of an auto lobby group even said our EV rebates are good. So many reasons taxpayers should be excited to spend more on what I want.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the head of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, on Monday, at committee, said that the rebate policy was a good policy and that it embraced the purchases of the kinds of vehicles Canadians want. In terms of EVs and other kind of investments, the good news is that there is new investment coming, the PowerCo plant in St. Thomas, the NextStar facility, which has rolled off one million battery cells. We have new investments in Cambridge, Oshawa and Oakville. There are investments in St. Catharines. Investments in our sector are happening with the government's support and because there is confidence in this industry. It is a coast-to-coast sector, with concentration in southern Ontario, and we will continue to be there for that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't want to talk about Honda's decision. I want to talk about how many cars Alliston has made. I want to say we are investing and helping the industry. I want to talk more about investments in my next answer.”

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-05

“I want you to know our side is committed to medicare. Our minister is fierce about it. We sometimes enforce the rules. We also talk to provinces about it. It's a big part of who we are.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the shared commitment to medicare, as expressed through the Canada Health Act, is a very strongly held commitment. We are very fortunate to have a minister who is a fierce guardian of that commitment. The exact way in which we engage with any one situation, again, relies on those principles that I mentioned around collaboration to ensure that access to medically necessary care remains based on need, not on the willingness to pay a loan. Enforcement is one tool, yes, but there are other tools we can use to engage provinces and health care providers constructively in this conversation. I know that commitment, on this side of the House, is very firm, and it comes from a very deep place of commitment to our values as a party and to national identity.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I am filling time with kind words about our health care system. The Canada Health Act forces provinces to do what the federal government wants if they want money. I want to cheer for the federal government enforcing the act and getting provinces to comply. I think the federal government should keep using its power to tell provinces what to do with health care.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the incoming governor general, the Hon. Louise Arbour, who is a voice for human rights, a voice for women in the law, a voice for official bilingualism and a voice for many of the values we hold sacred in this country. I want to congratulate her on her appointment. I also want to share my resonance with the values the hon. member is identifying. I am the son of two physicians who were immigrants and chose Canada over the United States because of their belief in providing health care regardless of the cost and regardless of someone's ability to pay. Indeed, my first interest in politics came from hearing their stories about their bedside conversations about what was happening in the hospital where they were working and their concern that medicare was maybe under threat. The hon. member and I are just two of the millions of people who care passionately about our universal public health care insurance system and share our commitment wholeheartedly, something that has become key to our national identity. It is one of our defining nation-building achievements, reflecting who we are and what we value as a nation: a simple, enduring principle that access to medically necessary care can be based on need, not the ability or willingness to pay, and something that has a strong cross-partisan consensus. The Canada Health Act, an achievement of previous Parliaments, puts that principle into action, safeguarding universal access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without financial barriers, and setting the standard that provinces and territories must meet in order to receive their full share of the Canada health transfer payment. As guardian of the Canada Health Act, and of those payments, the government will uphold it with resolve and care. When a province or territory allows patient charges for medically necessary services, dollar-for-dollar deductions are made from that jurisdiction's Canada health transfer payment, as I think Canadians would expect. Since 2015, those deductions have totalled more than $329 million. Deductions are not taken without some serious consideration of the potential violation that is involved. I think that is evidence of the federal government's steadfast commitment to the values at the heart of medicare, values that are a shared duty, a shared responsibility, if we are going to protect them. Our health care system is strongest when governments at all levels work together to ensure that Canadians can receive the services they need without financial barriers. This shared duty guides how we enforce the act. Our goal is not to penalize provinces and territories at the first sign of non-compliance but to uphold the principle of medicare through collaboration, through connection and through communication. When issues arise, we reach out. We listen. We gather the facts and share information openly. We work with our provincial and territorial partners to resolve challenges, as I know the minister is doing. We apply the act fairly and consistently, always mindful that co-operation, not confrontation, has kept medicare strong for generations. This approach has actually delivered results. Since 2018, more than $227 million has been returned to provinces and territories after they took action to eliminate patient charges for medically necessary services. This shows how collaboration protects access to care based on need, how the collaboration we do results in a reaction by the governments we are engaging with. We bring that spirit of collaboration to the work before us today. We will remain engaged, reviewing proposals in good faith, asking questions early and keeping lines of communication open. Where adjustments are needed to respect the Canada Health Act, we will work together to ensure that they are made. That is how we protect patients. That is how we keep medicare's promise.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“That's too bad some people didn't get payments. We're trying to make it faster. Doing nothing would be even worse. The system was bad before. We're being responsible now. We're fixing it step by step.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of missed payments. Some seniors have waited longer than they should. These delays were operational issues for files largely involving new applications or changes to payments. The department has worked to improve processing times with an OAS action plan implemented to improve service delivery, which has led to a 41% decrease in the inventory of new OAS applications. It is important to compare the question that the hon. member asks with the cost of not acting quickly. If we had not acted quickly, millions of OAS, EI and CPP recipients would have been stuck with an old system that would have potentially led to much worse outcomes for them. We are very proud of the transformation that is happening, which is taking place in a responsible and transparent manner, in a series of well-planned and prudent phases within the appropriated budget.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to respond to your questions about our IT project. It is old and complicated. Cybersecurity threats are getting worse. That is why the project is going over budget. We are committed to fixing the estimates. We are spending more than $6 billion to modernize old age security, employment insurance, and the Canada pension plan by 2031. The new system is already sending out billions in payments to millions of seniors. We awarded all contracts fairly. I want to thank the hard working public servants for making this happen.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her concern and her engagement on this, and I want to convey, on behalf of the government, that we do take those questions seriously. I want to address how the system is working at ESDC and issues around the accuracy of payments. I also want to clear up some misinformation surrounding program costs. Let us start at the beginning of this journey. In 2010, the Auditor General noted there was a high risk that in time, the IT infrastructure would not be able to support the delivery of core programs like OAS, EI and CPP, based on systems that were decades old. We knew an upgrade was essential. Since 2017, we have been investing in benefits delivery modernization because Canadians deserve functional, responsive and dependable services. We knew that any interruption to accurate and on-time payments could significantly affect recipients' ability to meet their daily needs, such as buying food or paying rent, needs that are addressed significantly by those supplements and benefits. We also knew that this would be an incredibly complicated task and that doing the job correctly would require significant investment. Between 2017 and March 31 of this year, the federal government spent $1.8 billion on the benefits delivery modernization program. The recently completed old age security on benefits delivery modernization project was delivered as planned and under budget. The total cost, however, has evolved, and that is due to what we now understand and what we are learning about some of the evolving threats and changes in the information technology space. Current estimates have evolved over time as we have gained a greater understanding of the complexity of unravelling 60-year-old systems. The 2023 Office of the Auditor General report acknowledged the department's commitment to revising estimates, as I think is appropriate. The program's long-term estimate of $6.6 billion now covers the completion of four main projects by 2031: the full transformation of benefits delivery for all old age security, employment insurance and Canada pension plan payments, as well as modernizing all of ESDC's call centres. What is different from when the estimates were first generated? Well, the cybersecurity landscape in 2017 was much less complex than it is today. Fraud and cyber-threats have been increasing in speed, scale and sophistication. This impacts the complexity and cost of the modernization. In other words, the threat environment raises the cost of keeping Canadians secure, and we are responding proactively, ultimately to protect the financial health of the program and the interests of Canadian taxpayers. Of the $473.4 million announced in the 2026 spring economic update, $176 million over two years will be used to increase OAS processing capacity and for OAS system maintenance and support. In terms of some of the questions the member has raised regarding the selection of proponents, we are fully transparent and we follow standard practices. Every contract includes clear deliverables. All contracts are competitively awarded and proactively disclosed in accordance with the rules in place. In terms of the beneficiaries, of who is benefiting from this transformation and the hard work that has been done by hard-working public servants and others, 7.4 million old age security clients were migrated to the new platform last year. Each one continued to receive payments as planned. The new system is currently providing 7.7 million seniors with pension benefits every month, many of whom rely on OAS as their primary or only source of income. The system is operating correctly, and 89.6 million payments have been issued with a value of nearly $84.7 billion. The number of clients waiting beyond their first month for payment has declined, and the department continues to ensure that these cases are processed and that clients have access to the benefits to which they are entitled.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to correct you on a technical detail in how we're measuring our deficits and debts. I don't want to talk about whether our spending and fiscal targets have really been consistent. Instead I want to put you on the spot and ask which of our many new spending promises you want to cut. If you question our spending or targets, you must want to cut grocery benefits or childcare or one of these other things I'm listing.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in case the Hansard did not pick it up, I want to make sure it is heard that it is the deficit-to-GDP ratio that is declining. The debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7 by some considerable margin. The deficit-to-GDP ratio and balancing operating spending with revenues are two of the key fiscal anchors that we are achieving. Again, I refer my colleague to page 12 of the spring economic update for some more context. I would invite him to reflect on which of the investments and key supports we are bringing in on the affordability and business support side that he would cut. Would it be the groceries and essentials benefit? Would it be national child care, which is supporting thousands of people in my riding and, I know, in his riding? Would it be the Canada dental care plan, or the investments we announced yesterday to support the steel, aluminum and copper sectors, which are struggling because of the tariffs? I think Canadians know that these investments are the right ones.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time by talking about how responsible we are with spending. I want to convince you that the government is doing a good job managing money. I will list some big numbers to make it sound like we are saving a lot. The numbers are very big so it must be true. I want you to think we are making good choices.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that our government's focus remains clear and disciplined. We are controlling what we can control, which means maintaining fiscal sustainability while making targeted, high-impact investments for Canadians; maintaining our fiscal anchors; and ensuring that every dollar spent on behalf of Canadians supports growth, resilience and improving the well-being of Canadians. That is the direction we need right now, and it is in the context of global changes we are witnessing, which are sudden and, I would say, unprecedented. Global economies are more than a year into a profound rupture, characterized by the trade decisions made by the U.S. administration. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade and financial decisions. Of course, the recent conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy infrastructure, has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains and adding to already elevated uncertainty. Despite this environment, the government is delivering an $11.5‑billion improvement in the projected 2025-26 budgetary balance. This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance relative to last year's budget by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. I will note that, in addition, our deficit-to-GDP ratio, one of the key fiscal anchors, is well below the G7 average, as shown on page 12 of the spring economic update. Fortunately, this fiscal room allows the government to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food and housing affordability. This is a move that started in budget 2025 and indeed, before then, with some income tax cuts for which we were happy to get the support of the other side. It marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focusing on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investments while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Our budget 2025, as members know, set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are moving toward that with very strong growth rates projected in relation to other G7 countries, and again, the strongest fiscal position in the G7, in particular with a debt-to-GDP ratio well below that of our G7 peers. Our plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility, not for its own sake, but to create the capacity to invest our long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance. I want to mention again that there are two fiscal anchors, which are balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio, both of which we are obtaining. We also remain committed to the disciplined implementation of budget 2025 efficiency measures, including the comprehensive expenditure review, which, together with other measures in budget 2025, total $60 billion in savings and revenues over 5 years. We are now in the implementation phase. The focus is turning toward targeted, ongoing reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These are not easy decisions; they are challenging but necessary actions. We will continue to support our objective of spending less to invest more. In these serious times, with these serious geopolitical headwinds, it is important to make targeted investments, control what we can control, maintain our fiscal anchors and attend to the affordability and economic needs of Canadians.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“You say you want solutions. We already gave you two solutions. Canadian companies get special treatment. Ridings will get more handouts to fight tariffs. What more do you want from us? That sounds pretty concrete to me.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I like that my colleague from Beauce shares stories about businesses in his riding, including the ones we heard at meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I think that all of us on both sides of the House agree that we want the best deal possible. On this side of the House, we believe that a bad deal is worse than no deal. My colleague called on us to propose concrete measures, so I have a question for him about two concrete measures that we have proposed. First, there is the buy Canadian policy and second, there is the additional $500 million for the regional tariff response initiative. Are these concrete measures not a response to the challenge mentioned by my colleague?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to look smart by hinting I know about this topic. But really I want to change the subject to something that might make us look good. Look at this big increase in exports. It's all because of our policies. I want to talk about diversification now because that works in our favor.”

“I'm filling time with kind words about my colleagues from Quebec. I want to look like I care about their businesses. But really I just want to remind you that the government has made investments in the port of Contrecoeur. I hope that helps those companies so they stop asking for more money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech and that of my colleague from Joliette—Manawan . My colleague talked about Quebec businesses. As a member from Ontario and parliamentary secretary, I am more concerned with businesses in Ontario, but I know that the minister and my colleague, the parliamentary secretary and member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, are very involved with Quebec businesses. I also appreciate my colleague's comments on specific businesses. My colleague from Joliette—Manawan and I heard about them at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Now, I have a question for him. We know that the government has just made major investments in the port of Contrecoeur. Will these investments help the companies he is talking about?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Industry

2026-05-01

“Blame the other party for a problem from decades ago. Claim everything is good now. But also say we need to spend more.”

Statements by Members

Spring in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park

2026-05-01

“I want people to come to my riding and enjoy the nice park and cherry blossoms. The government has spent money on this park. That's good for my riding.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, 67 years and one month ago, Toru-Hagiwara, the Japanese ambassador to Canada, presented 2,000 Somei Yoshino sakura to the citizens of Toronto for their support of Japanese Canadian refugees after the Second World War. Tomorrow, we will reap the fruits of that gift and other gifts, which are a living testament to the friendship between our two nations and a reminder of one of the many hidden benefits of being a Canada that welcomes refugees. High Park, the beating heart of our riding, will wake up. The flora and fauna will shake off winter, and High Park little league baseball will hold its opening day at Ernie Keith Field. The sakura cherry blossoms will be in full bloom, thanks to the hard-working public workers who help keep High Park safe and moving, as well as organizations, such as the High Park Nature Centre and the Bloor by the Park Business Improvement Area, that get our community excited about the sakura. I ask people to join us in High Park this weekend and to bring their families, their friends and their cameras. They will join thousands of people in the renewal that spring brings and bask in the beauty of the sakura cherry blossoms.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

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

2026-04-30

“'I don't want to bring up the costs or trade-offs. I like this proposal, so let's all feel good about passing it.'”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, and I want to commend the member for Bourassa for introducing this bill and for speaking so powerfully about this major challenge. I would like to commend him for his speech, in which he outlined the benefits that workers will enjoy if the measures outlined in the bill are implemented. I want to thank the other participants in the debate, too, including the member for Peace River—Westlock, who I think has a lot of experience and knowledge to share in the very particular matters that this bill covers. I want to commend the comments made by the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj and the member for Repentigny. I commend the Bloc Québécois for supporting this bill and recognizing the work done by the member for Bourassa. I, too, would like to commend the efforts made by the Province of Quebec and by the people of Quebec to be leaders on this issue. I also want to thank the member for Scarborough—Woburn, who, in previous parliaments and in Ontario, has been a very strong champion of the right to repair. We are standing on the shoulders, as has been said, of the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and the European Union. Ontario is making steps. When we think about the idea of the right to repair, it may not be a human right, but repair is fundamental to all that is human, so this piece of legislation is a very human endeavour that puts humans back in control of technology and of the things that are increasingly governing us. I want to thank our friend from Bourassa for shining a light on this and for making a very strong statement that it will stop; that we are working in the opposite direction, where humans are going to be in control of technology; that we have, as humans, this intimate connection with the things around us; and that we have a right to repair. It brings to mind a recent book that has come out by Stewart Brand called Maintenance: Of Everything. Stewart Brand has always been on the cusp of the latest thinking about technology, human connectedness and the great ideas of our time. I want to quote from Maintenance: Of Everything at some length because I think it captures the humanity that the member for Bourassa captured so well in his speech and the thing that is driving all of us, and is driving the frustrations behind and benefits from this legislation. The frustrations have been articulated by my colleagues across the way, as well as the benefits that this legislation could bring. Mr. Brand writes in his book: Maintenance is what keeps everything going. It’s what keeps life going. Every living thing spends a great deal of time and toil in maintaining its own life and the life of the systems it depends on. Plants tend the life of the soil they grow in. Beavers maintain their dams and thereby the pond that protects them. Humans maintain their bodies, their vehicles, their homes, and their cities, along with much else. Nearly everything worth maintaining is nested in something larger even more worth maintaining. But so much of doing maintenance is tiresome. Brush the damn teeth, change the damn oil. They are unrewarding chores—repetitive, boring, often frustrating, and endless. Since that part of maintenance is a pain, we shirk it, defer it, fail to budget time or money for it, let it drop to the bottom of the priority list. That’s easy to do because the necessity of maintenance accumulates invisibly and gradually. Then suddenly one day the thing breaks, the system falters, and everything stops in a turmoil of disruption, expense, and blame. A number of us have experienced this with our mobile devices. I was just in conversation with my wife, who shared her frustration about the latest mishap with her phone. I will go back to Stewart Brand: The apparent paradox is profound: Maintenance is absolutely necessary and maintenance is optional. It it easy to put off, and yet it has to be done. Defer now, regret later. Neglect kills. What to do? What I so appreciate about our moment in the House is that the member for Bourassa has asked, what to do? What to do about this paradox, where maintenance is important? We delay it, but we are nested in even greater systems that are worth maintaining, which, for Stewart Brand, is ultimately the entire earth. The member for Bourassa's response is that we are going to do something about this. We are going to take inspiration from those who care about maintenance and who have the connectivity to their devices and appliances, as so well described by the member for Peace River—Westlock, harkening back to perhaps a time when there was a more intimate connection between the manufacturers' devices and those who used the devices. Now too often the manufacturers of devices are far away from us. The beneficiaries of the economy in which maintenance is devalued are often outside of Canada, but we can do something about this. We can pass this bill. As far as I can tell, and it has been articulated by some of my colleagues across the way, the bill would have three main benefits: environmental benefits, customer savings and economic activity. The environmental benefits of maintenance and the cost of not investing in maintenance are very clear. I have data from Equiterre, which published a survey eight years ago. We have with us in the House the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who has close ties to this very important non-governmental organization. A growing number of electronics and household appliances are becoming obsolete every year. In 2016, 44.7 million tonnes of electronic waste were generated worldwide. Five years later, the increase in the amount of waste was estimated at 17%. Home appliances and electronics generate 44.7 million tonnes of waste worldwide. This is an eight-year-old figure. Canadians know about this and they are frustrated by this. In fact, too many Canadians and too many people around the world have given up because they assume that we cannot do anything about this. In a 2018 survey, 86% of respondents indicated that they believe home appliances and electronics are deliberately designed with short lifespans, and 80% of respondents reported that they purchased their devices new. In an economy that has all these devices around, people are having to buy these new devices, specifically electronic devices, because they do not last long enough. The planned obsolescence issues, as noted, are key. In the survey, 61% of Canadians kept their electronic devices for less than five years. When it came to home appliances, it was 45%. There is something we can do about this. We can attend to the environmental benefits. This piece of framework legislation, and let us bring it to committee as soon as possible, would allow Canadians down the road to have the ability to, we hope, attend to their devices in the way that Stewart Brand described and not send them as quickly to the scrap heap. Customer savings are clearly key in this time when Canadians are concerned about affordability. Again, we are sending money to device manufacturers and appliance manufacturers, too often, overseas. The member for Bourassa spoke so passionately about the kinds of people he sees every day who are facing choices about what to do with their piece of technology that has broken too quickly. The customer savings that are possible if we implement this legislation successfully, I think, are very promising. Then there is the economic activity. This piece of legislation could create a new set of industries, a new set of apprentices, and we have learned a bit in the spring economic statement about the upcoming apprenticeship benefits. Imagine a new generation of young workers who are working in shops on their main streets locally, doing this kind of repair at a fraction of the cost that it takes to buy a new device, keeping that money home, creating economies across Canada. Wherever we have a device, whether it is urban or rural, we need someone to repair that device. It brings to mind, for me, in my riding, the Parkdale People's Economy, an effort that really shined a light on how we need to do some of our economic activity differently. As the member for Bourassa said so clearly, the right to repair may not be a human right but it is fundamental to what it means to be human. Let us bring this legislation to committee. Let us reclaim a bit of what makes us human. Let us say that these technologies, these devices, do not rule us but that we rule them, that we are in partnership with each other and that we can have a better quality of life. We can experience the benefits of being in a community by having a relationship with these devices, with these appliances and with these technologies that is more human and more in line with the rest of the economy and the rest of the community in which we find ourselves. Pass the bill. Let us take inspiration from the member for Bourassa. Let us take inspiration from Stewart Brand. Let us take inspiration from the European Union, Quebec, Manitoba and elsewhere. Let us send the bill to committee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗