Abdelhaq Sari
Bourassa, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, people are coming out of the woodwork every day claiming to be AI experts. Some have contacted me, others have tried to meet with me and, recently, someone insisted that I read his book. I thought to myself, “Oh no, not another one!” I decided to take his advice anyway and read his book. Well, I followed his advice.”
“Most of all, the environment and our planet will benefit, because each appliance repaired rather than discarded represents a resource conserved and one less piece of trash. Repair is an integral part of Quebec and Canadian culture.”
“That is what Bill C-267 proposes: a response that is both simple and ambitious—a national framework for sustainable and repairable electronic products and essential devices. It is not a rigid regulation; it is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdictions.”
“It makes a lot of sense because it provides that things can be repaired instead of merely replaced, that we can be informed instead of being unaware, and that we can work together instead of imposing anything. (1830) [ English ] I think of the families in Bourassa and across the country who are watching what we do here today.”
“The European Union introduced a right to repair directive in 2024. The United Kingdom passed its legislation back in 2021. In the U.S., over twenty states have taken action with bipartisan support. Apple, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool are already adapting these standards to their other markets. This means a minimal burden for Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-267 . Someone's refrigerator breaks down. They call a technician, who says that the part is no longer available, that the repair manual is missing or was never available and that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance.”
The complete record
Every one of 360 lines we hold for Abdelhaq Sari, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“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.”
“Lastly, this approach is pro-consumer because it restores a better balance between manufacturers on the one hand and people on the other. [ English ] This is good for families, good for the environment and good for a more responsible economy. [ Translation ] 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.”
“It also increases the amount of electronic waste, one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] 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.”
“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. (1720) [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] This state of affairs is costing our families dearly. It forces people to replace appliances prematurely when they could otherwise be repaired.”
“[ English ] 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. [ Translation ] 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.”
“Bill C-267. Second Reading 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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“I want to thank everyone involved in the organization for their caring and hard work, as well as for coming here to Ottawa. Congratulations and continued success to La Voix des Aînés.”
“Mr. Speaker, seniors are the living memory of our communities, our families and our society. They are an invaluable asset and a source of wisdom, and we can never thank them enough. However, far too often, isolation and loneliness cast a shadow over seniors' daily lives. That is why, today, I want to commend La Voix des Aînés for the extraordinary work that it does in giving seniors back the place they deserve with kindness, compassion and generosity. Through its presence, its willingness to listen and its initiatives, this organization combats isolation, forges ties and reminds our seniors that they matter, that they have a place and that they help to enrich our society. I also want to mention the recognition and engagement brunch that was held on April 12 in Montreal, an important event designed to promote this wonderful mission.”
“Mr. Speaker, every year on March 20, we mark the International Day of La Francophonie. With over 320 million speakers worldwide, the French language serves as a bridge between communities, a source of cultural wealth and a driving force for international co-operation. In Canada, and Quebec in particular, French lies at the heart of our identity. It shapes our culture, our history and our ability to live together in harmony. As the member of Parliament for Bourassa, I am proud to represent an area with a vibrant, diverse francophone community made up of active citizens from all sorts of backgrounds. Today, let us celebrate the French language, but let us also remember our collective responsibility to protect, promote and showcase it both here and abroad. Preserving French means defending more than just words.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again clarify something. The bill has been amended, and I hope that my colleagues opposite have read the amendments. I talked about Montreal, which is a large urban centre, but I could just as easily have been talking about Toronto or any other big city. The issue is that the police need this regulatory power so that they can take preventive action, so that they can eliminate the problems, the crime and the threats against these places of worship at their source.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something that my colleague mentioned and elaborate on it. It is important to remember that this bill does not target opinions; it targets acts of hatred and hate crimes. I will give a very simple example. Let us remember what happened at the Quebec City mosque. The young man who opened fire on the people in that mosque had posted hate messages on social media. When the police asked him whether anyone had ever told him that that was illegal and that it was not right, he said that he had been doing it for years and that no one had ever tried to stop him. No one had ever talked to him about it. That is very important. Horrific hate crimes and terrorist acts are born from hate that is, unfortunately, nourished by hate speech on social media. This bill seeks to destroy and eliminate this type of speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify two points that need to be understood when asking this sort of question. Protecting freedoms does not mean tolerating hatred. On our side of the House, we do not want to tolerate hatred. We do not want to, nor can we, tolerate violence against any place of worship. We do not want to prevent anyone from exercising their right to free speech, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs. We think it is very important to make that clear. Once again, I would like to mention my experience with the police and public safety services in Montreal. Yes, we need this lever. Yes, we need this regulation. We must take preventive action, rather than wondering whether there will actually be shootings as a result of this regulation. We must give the police the tools they need.”
“I urge all members of the House to rise to the occasion, support Bill C-9 and ensure it passes third reading because, in the face of hatred, inaction is not an option.”
“I know that police officers face this limitation because they do not have any power to take action. Incidentally, municipalities are on the front lines of these realities, and they have expressed support for our bill. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has made it clear that our legislative framework needs to be strengthened to combat hate, including hate speech and hate symbols. Municipalities witness the concrete impact of these acts on social cohesion every single day. We should listen to what they have to say. This debate should not be partisan. It is about the safety of Canadians. It is about human dignity and our country's core values. Our government is committed to taking action, to protecting Canadians and to ensuring that everyone, no matter who they are, can live freely and practise their faith without fear.”
“They think that it is crucial for their dignity and safety, for living together in harmony and upholding people's fundamental right to live without fear. Bill C‑9 also contains measures to protect access to places of worship, schools and community centres. Again, let us be very clear. The goal is not to restrict the right to peaceful protest. It is to prevent intimidation, obstruction and fear campaigns. I served on Montreal's city council for eight years. I was the vice-chair of Montreal's public safety commission for eight years. I worked with the Montreal police for almost five years. This bill is critical for law enforcement and the police because it will allow them to take action and provide protection. I am speaking from personal experience.”
“When a synagogue or mosque is vandalized, it is not just the building that is under attack. The perpetrator is sending a message of fear to an entire population or group. When a person is attacked because of their religion, because of their hijab or kippah or because of their ethnic origin, it is not an isolated act. On the contrary, it is an attempt to undermine societal harmony. This bill clearly affirms that such acts will be recognized for what they are: serious attacks on Canada's social fabric. Some have said that this is excessive. I am hearing members on the other side of the House saying that this goes too far. However, those who are living in fear do not feel the same way. They think that this bill is necessary.”
“The bill also provides a crucial clarification of the very definition of hatred. It is based on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, including the Keegstra decision. Hatred is defined as an emotion of extreme intensity, a deep loathing that goes far beyond mere offence or disagreement. Let me be clear. Criticizing, debating and expressing an opinion, however vigorously, remains protected and remains a right. However, inciting hatred, dehumanizing others and calling for violence are unacceptable. These acts have no place in our democracy and no place in Canada. The bill also introduces a major step forward: the explicit recognition of hate crimes. Hate crimes are not like other offences. Yes, they target individuals, but they also target their identity and their entire community.”
“The communities concerned have clearly told us that they want protection and do not want to be taken hostage by politicians' debates ever again. (1315) I would now like to address some other fundamental issues. One of them is the requirement for Attorney General consent. I want to spend some time on this, because it is very important. This is a fundamental issue that really needs to be clarified, and it is important not to spread lies about it. This is a really important aspect because it is not merely incidental. It provides essential protection against abuse. It ensures that only legitimate prosecutions will go forward, thereby preventing any abuse or exploitation of the justice system. Once again, the committee was thorough and judicious in reinforcing this requirement.”
“Let us be quite clear: Fighting hate does not mean giving up our freedoms. On the contrary, our approach has been guided from the start by one fundamental principle: We must protect Canadians while fully upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and all of our fundamental rights. That is why Bill C‑9 is built on solid guarantees and high thresholds. Consider the provisions targeting certain hate or terrorist symbols, for example. These are not vague or random measures. On the contrary, they take aim at very specific symbols, Nazi symbols, symbols associated with known terrorist organizations recognized by Canada. These symbols are not harmless. They embody hate, glorify violence and are designed to intimidate.”
“An estimated four out of five victims do not file a complaint. I repeat: four out of five victims. That means that behind every statistic, there are untold stories. Behind every statistic, there are fears that kill and, of course, invisible wounds. Those are the voices we have to answer to today. Bill C‑9 as amended provides a clear, firm and responsible response. I invite everyone to read the amendments. It strengthens the tools available to law enforcement, protects our communities' public spaces, and sends a clear message that there is no place for hate in Canada. I want to commend the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for its hard work. Thanks to its efforts, this bill is now more specific, more balanced and more respectful of our fundamental rights.”
“We are seeing stalling tactics, filibustering and procedural stunts that put partisan calculations above Canadians' safety. In politics, wasting time is a luxury we cannot afford when communities are living in fear. Hate crimes are on the rise, yet the opposition is responding by contriving procedural delays and would rather post clips on YouTube than provide our constituents with meaningful protection. I have watched people rise in the House just to get sound bites and spread lies about the bill, instead of prioritizing and promoting meaningful protection for our constituents. That is why I decided to speak today. We need to go even further, because even the alarming figures cited by my colleagues on this side of the House do not tell the whole story. The reality is even more serious. Hate crimes are vastly under-reported.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of responsibility that I rise today to speak at the report stage of Bill C-9 . This bill seeks to combat hate. It is an essential bill that is urgently needed to protect Canadians. We have all observed a troubling reality across the country, namely the increase in hate-motivated crime. These acts are not abstract. These acts inflict harm, cause trauma and, above all, divide Canadian society. Just think about the attacks on synagogues in the Toronto area. Just think about the father who was assaulted in my Montreal riding because of his identity, beliefs and background. These acts are not trivial. They are an attack on who we are and on Canadian values. They are an attack against us as a society. However, in response to this urgent problem, what are we seeing?”
“By working with the provinces, territories, manufacturers and consumer advocacy groups, we can promote products that are designed to last and easier to repair. This will help reduce household expenses, support the circular economy, and encourage more sustainable consumption. I invite my colleagues to support this initiative. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-267. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce C-267, An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances . He said: Mr. Speaker, I feel a great sense of responsibility as I rise today to introduce my very first bill as a member of Parliament. This bill seeks to establish a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances. Every year, millions of Canadians have to replace appliances that could be repaired. This is very expensive for families and contributes to the rapid growth of electronic waste. The purpose of this bill is to better inform consumers, encourage manufacturers to design more durable products, and promote a more transparent and responsible marketplace.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is one way to ask the question. Is there an issue? The answer is clearly yes. Have there been problems? Are there things that need to be corrected? In fact, my introduction was along those lines. Are the delays really long? Yes, but what has the government done? I have identified four important measures that the government is working on to reduce costs and delays, so that immigrants are treated humanely and with the dignity that Canadians can truly offer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question but I think the comments are very clear. We must be careful. We are talking about the health care system. Once again, a correlation is being made with an immigration issue, which we agree on. During that time, I was a city councillor in Montreal. We did indeed welcome these people. I am the member for Bourassa, and I work very hard to strike that balance I talked about: being a country that is welcoming and that offers services while also ensuring there are no abuses or cost increases. We all have to work very hard to that end. I think that going back on a particular issue and creating yet another simplistic correlation between immigration, asylum seekers and the problems with the health care system is unacceptable in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, and it is an opportunity to get back to the issue of correlation. Making simplistic correlations between immigration, asylum seekers, vulnerable people and the health care system is nothing but two-bit politics. We really need to work very hard to make sure that Canadians truly understand the real impact indicators that are causing problems and longer wait times. I think that the parliamentary secretary was clear in his explanation earlier that it is, in fact, a very small percentage of people who benefit from this.”
“It is a temporary safety net, a public health tool and a transition mechanism. It is a reflection of our values. As we proceed with the reforms, including those in Bill C‑12 , we will continue to reduce financial pressures, improve efficiency and ensure that this program remains responsible, fair and sustainable. That is why I encourage the House to support these reforms and continue building a system that is rigorous, compassionate and true to Canadian values.”
“In fact, we can already see some results: In 2025, the number of asylum claims dropped by about one-third from the previous year. This shows that the government's measures are working and are helping to reduce pressure on the system. Canadians want a well-managed, compassionate and credible immigration system. They want us to protect the vulnerable, address abuse and ensure that every taxpayer dollar is used wisely. That is exactly what our government is doing. We are aligning benefits with provincial plans, introducing cost-sharing mechanisms, strengthening oversight and transparency, reforming the system to improve efficiency, and continuously monitoring, assessing and adjusting the program to ensure its long-term viability. The interim federal health program is not a privilege.”
“Our government's approach aims to prevent these situations, protect public health and ensure an orderly transition to the provincial and territorial systems. Furthermore, the program is rigorously monitored. Claims are analyzed, audited and administered through a structured network of health care providers, with clear mechanisms to ensure the integrity of expenditures and the proper use of public funds. We also continue to assess benefits to avoid duplication and maintain fairness across governments. It should also be said that some financial projections have not yet included the savings generated by the new quotas or the impact of the ongoing legislative reforms. These measures will have a direct impact on how long the program is used and on overall costs.”
“Fewer delays mean a much fairer system for everyone. (1710) Fourth, we ended the use of federally funded hotel accommodations for asylum seekers, and we refocused our efforts on more permanent, sustainable and community-based solutions. These decisions lower costs and promote more stable integration pathways, as I said earlier. It is also important to remember a fundamental principle: Cutting health care does not make health care needs disappear. On the contrary, delaying essential care until entering into a provincial plan would only shift costs to the provinces and territories and would often only increase them, since health problems do not improve. Instead, they become worse and more expensive to treat.”
“Third, we introduced and advanced legislative reforms, including Bill C‑12 , to reduce abuse, improve processing times and reduce the length of time people rely on temporary federal support. I would like to digress for a moment. When we speak of temporary situations, we are not talking about people who take advantage of the system, on the contrary. No one on the path to immigration wants to remain in a temporary situation, to remain in uncertainty or to abuse our program. On the contrary, these people want a reply so that they can become part of society, enter the workforce, and integrate into Canadian society with their family. This is very important, because sometimes in our speeches we draw parallels that can create false perceptions or misunderstandings. Fewer delays mean lower costs.”
“We have taken targeted measures, responsible measures and, above all, concrete measures. First, we introduced a copayment model for certain supplemental benefits as of 2025. Recipients now contribute a portion of the cost of drugs, the cost of dental care, the cost of vision care and especially the cost of counselling services and assistive devices. Basic care such as medical consultations, hospitalization and tests remain fully covered. This change makes the IFHP more consistent with the experience of many Canadians who also have to contribute to their supplemental plan. Second, we suspended certain updates to the IFHP that would have resulted in an automatic spending increase, while maintaining coverage comparable to that offered by the provinces and territories to people on welfare.”
“This really needs to be stated so that Canadians listening today clearly understand the cause and do not draw simplistic correlations such as the one that was just heard. The increase is not the result of a change in the program's purpose, either. That is not the reason. This increase in costs is due mainly to a significant increase in the number of refugee claims in recent years and to longer processing times for these claims. In practical terms, this means that some people stay in the system longer and therefore continue to be covered temporarily by the federal program before being transferred to provincial and territorial plans. In response to these pressures, our government has not stood idly by. As I said earlier, our government has worked very hard to maintain equilibrium within this program.”
“Despite this, our government is ready to take on this challenge and is ready to seek this balance and implement it. This program exists for one very simple reason: to ensure that those who are most vulnerable, including asylum seekers, have access to basic health care during a transitional period, and I emphasize the word “transitional”, until they become eligible for provincial and territorial health insurance. Let us also be clear: This program must be managed rigorously. It must be managed transparently and, most of all, sustainably. Certain figures are being used today to stoke fear and concern, particularly with regard to the increase in the program costs. This makes it important to go over the facts once again. The increase in costs is not due to an expansion of benefits.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands . Over the past few years, we have all seen the importance of good public governance. Canadians expect their government to manage public funds responsibly, but never at the expense of our values. Canadians' values are reflected in the values of our government. These are our core values, our humanity and our sense of justice. This is precisely the balance we seek to maintain in managing the interim federal health program. Generally speaking, finding balance is the most difficult aspect of governing. Governments must avoid going to one extreme or the other. Sometimes, finding a balance is extremely complex and difficult.”
“Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very short and very simple. Had members listened carefully without trying to obstruct anything, they would know that the plan I outlined is based on investment in manufacturing, innovation and workforce support, support for workers. The primary goal is to revive our auto sector in a very sustainable way.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would say that charging stations play a role in many ways. First, everyone knows that Quebec covers a very large area, so for EV users, the more charging stations there are, the better. Second, it is important to note that Quebec has exceptional expertise in designing, developing and installing these charging stations. Once again, Quebec is not only a leader in manufacturing cars and batteries, but also in developing these stations, and other workers will benefit from this. In closing, the more charging stations there are, the more people will be encouraged to buy EVs and the more they will enjoy driving them. As a result, the number of vehicles running solely on gasoline will decrease, which will obviously help us meet our targets.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know whether I am aware of climate and environmental issues and whether our government is also aware them. The answer is obviously yes. Now, to answer the part of the question where my colleague talked about, or rather made inferences about economic ambitions, the answer is once again yes. However, our economic ambitions and development also come with a certain responsibility. This is a responsible development that will protect workers and aim to truly electrify transportation. Quebec will also benefit from it, since everyone in Quebec who charges their car will be using electricity from Hydro-Québec, a Crown corporation. We are both economically ambitious and very environmentally responsible.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very relevant, but his analysis is, to put it simply, flawed, if not false. In fact, as I said earlier, our goal is to have jobs right here in Canada, in our communities, and to be able to export. Our goal is not just to export our products, but also to keep and preserve our jobs.”
“We are building a modern industry, strengthening our industrial sovereignty and preparing the Canadian economy, and we are doing it with workers.”
“(1615) [ English ] Canada has major strengths in its critical minerals, expertise in artificial intelligence, clean energy and a skilled workforce. [ Translation ] We also have access to 51 countries and more than 1.5 billion consumers through our trade agreements. The challenge is clear: If we want to remain an automotive nation, we must invest. Our strategy aims to strengthen domestic production, attract investment and protect workers while positioning Canada as a global leader in the transportation of tomorrow. I will conclude with this. The true economic strength of a country like ours is measured not only by its exports, but also by its ability to create quality jobs right here in our country and to prepare for the future of our workers, our families, our regions and our communities. That is what we are doing.”
“We have already approved more than 1,350 work-sharing agreements, which have prevented more than 18,500 layoffs. Enhanced employment insurance measures will allow more than 190,000 workers to receive extended support, including up to 20 additional weeks for long-tenured workers. These measures are not theoretical. They protect real jobs. They are being applied in real factories and in the very real communities that each and every one of us here represents. Now let us talk about the transition to electric vehicles. This is not just an environmental issue. It is also a transition to a new economic trajectory. Electric vehicles cost up to 50% less to maintain and up to 10 times less to power than gas vehicles. Adopting EVs creates jobs, attracts investment and strengthens our global competitiveness.”
“We are also investing $1.5 billion to develop the national EV charging network in order to remove a significant barrier restricting EV adoption. These measures have a clear objective: to produce the vehicles of tomorrow here in Canada. Earlier, I was talking about limitations mainly having to do with travelling very long distances. I myself have an electric vehicle. This is one of the things our government wants to work on to achieve these clear objectives. The goal is to produce the vehicles of tomorrow right here in Canada, but also to be able to actually use them in our country, which is extremely big. At the heart of this strategy are people. There are workers. We are investing $570 million to support employment, training and retraining. This could reach up to 66,000 workers across the country.”
“[ Translation ] That is why the automotive strategy is based on a simple principle: Produce more here in Canada, innovate here in Canada and protect our workers. That is why we are mobilizing major investments, including $3 billion from the strategic response fund and up to $100 million from the regional tariff response initiative to help the auto industry adapt, modernize and diversify. We are also supporting the energy transition with clear, achievable and quantitative targets. We want to achieve a goal of 75% EV sales by 2035 and 90% EV sales by 2040. To support domestic demand, we are implementing a $2.3‑billion, five-year program to make EVs more affordable through incentives of up to $5,000 for EVs and $2,500 for plug-in hybrids.”
“[ English ] It has shaped our prosperity for more than a century and continues to structure entire communities. [ Translation ] The facts are clear. Unfortunately, this sector is undergoing major changes. Since 2016, auto manufacturing in Canada has decreased from about 2.3 million vehicles to about 1.2 million vehicles in 2025. Moreover, over 5,000 jobs have unfortunately been lost in this industry over the last few years. We must respond to this reality seriously and with determination. Today, more than 90% of vehicles assembled in Canada and close to 60% of auto parts are exported to the United States. This dependence makes our industry powerful, but it also makes it vulnerable. [ English ] Our automotive strategy is based on clear principles: Produce more in Canada, innovate in Canada and protect Canadian jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would simply like to say that, as a member of Parliament, as the member for Bourassa, and above all as a father, I am deeply affected by the events that occurred in Tumbler Ridge on Tuesday evening. I would like to express my sincere solidarity. I would also like to express my deepest sympathies to the victims, their loved ones, their families and the community of British Columbia. During this difficult time, all of us here are united by compassion, respect and the desire to support one another. I rise today to speak to a matter of strategic importance to our economy and to hundreds of thousands of families. It concerns the future of the Canadian auto industry. This industry supports more than 500,000 jobs in Canada and is one of the pillars of our manufacturing base.”