Karim Bardeesy
Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the continuing work of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the leader of the Green Party, on issues related to contaminants and leakage. I also want to thank her for the interventions regarding the work of the late Dr.”
“Mr. Speaker, treaty rights are sacrosanct to this government, as are the regimes that we have in place, including the regimes for non-compliance and the environmental damages penalties that we have under the legislation. Incidents such as the recent spill at Cold Lake are taken very seriously.”
“That work continues, with Environment and Climate Change Canada and indigenous groups working together through that working group to develop long-term, science-based solutions that will form recommendations to the minister . I think the hon.”
“It is a core responsibility of the current government, and, I would say, of government, both now and for future generations. We need to address risks associated with tailings management in a way that gives sustained attention and brings solutions grounded in sound science.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that small businesses do well when consumer spending is up, and that is why we have made investments like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Wages are increasing faster than inflation, and we have cut taxes through measures like the superproductivity deduction to make it easier for businesses to invest.”
“I would add that, with some of the investments we have been making in science and research and some of the advances in technology, we hope this work can continue to accelerate and to inform policy-makers, government and hon. members in an even more timely fashion.”
The complete record
Every one of 513 lines we hold for Karim Bardeesy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, our auto strategy associates itself with the stronger emissions standards that are prevailing in California and in Europe, and it is part of a strategy that will decrease our dependence on internal combustion engines and increase our adoption of electrification. This strategy is good for the environment and good for the climate. Not in the motion but in the debate, we now hear that the Conservatives are opposed to California-style emissions standards. That, incidentally, is the position of the U.S. administration, which is now saying it does not want any emissions standards whatsoever. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is this: Is he in support of California-style, European-style and Canadian emissions standards, or no emissions standards?”
“Madam Speaker, I welcomed the beginning of my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon's speech, where he did acknowledge the trade war. Unfortunately, he spent the rest of his speech mostly talking about the policies that we think will spur investment in response to consumer choice. I heard a number of critiques of different kinds of investments, including, if I understand correctly, the kinds of investments that would have been made by a previous government of a different colour during the financial crisis, investments that helped attract Japanese automakers, and other policy choices. Within the motion and within the critiques of the investment attraction policies that we are putting forward on this side, what positive ideas does the member have to attract new investment into auto production in Canada?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time the member for Oxford and I had, together with his colleagues, the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler and the member for Cambridge , participating in the rollout of the new 2026 RAV4. I will note that it is a hybrid RAV4 that responded not only to consumer taste but also to the California emission standards, which require an increase in vehicle efficiency. Does my colleague agree with me that the California emission standards helped contribute to the conditions that resulted in the RAV4 hybrid being manufactured at the world-leading plant in Cambridge and Woodstock?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague fights every day for workers and the auto industry, here in Canada and in his riding. We are bringing in specific measures for workers who need help and we think that the investments we are trying to attract will create jobs not only in southern Ontario, but across Canada, especially in ridings that have economic potential in the technology sector or in the climate sector.”
“Madam Speaker, that is exactly what this policy hopes to create in future years. I mentioned the era of Japanese automaking, when policy-makers made a brave choice to invite Japanese automakers in, despite substantial opposition. That resulted in the kind of consumer choice that now exists. I believe that these investments will create the kind of consumer choice that the hon. member is referring to.”
“Madam Speaker, we made a major move forward in ensuring EI eligibility, which was made earlier through some previous legislation. If there are particular cases the hon. member has around supports that are not moving fast enough, either through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada or another department, I would be happy to work with him or to refer those cases to the appropriate colleagues.”
“Madam Speaker, I was hoping my colleague across the way would use the window I created to condemn the tariffs. I am a bit disappointed he did not do that, but I will take the question anyway. The fact is that, as I mentioned, 90% of the vehicles we manufacture here are exported to the United States. We think these rebates, first, respond to consumer desires; second, help build the electric future we need, can have and can attract; and third, are good for the economy.”
“It means those supply chains, software providers, electricity providers and innovators contributing to the economy that the hon. member referred to benefit, and it actually puts pressure on the Americans to respond in kind.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a champion for economic development in all its forms, and especially for clean and sustainable development. This is what the strategy does. It embraces the consumer choices that are emerging, the Canadian content of those vehicles that the hon. member referred to and also the multiplication that comes from an electric future, where the economy benefits not just in those auto-producing jurisdictions, not just in Cambridge, Woodstock and Oshawa, but across Canada. That is what a strategy like this that embraces electrification means. It means more jobs in the Maritimes. It means more jobs in Quebec. It means more jobs in western Canada. It means more jobs in the north.”
“Madam Speaker, as the member mentioned, it was necessary to reinstate these incentives. We saw that removing these incentives had an unintended and perhaps unforeseen impact on the EV market. Studies by the Canadian Climate Institute indicated that these incentives are needed to promote the economy and spur EV sales. That is why we did the responsible thing, in my opinion, and reintroduced these incentives.”
“The question is, are we going to be more sovereign and adopt tailpipe emissions strategies that are in line with what Europe is doing and what California is doing, or are we going to hold ourselves back? We think these kinds of decisions can help drive investment in the right kind of way, without the kind of punitive measures that were in the electric vehicle availability standard. We believe they are also good for the environment and good for consumers.”
“Madam Speaker, I will refer my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton to some of the electricity generation projects that are happening in her area of the province, and in particular Bruce. I will refer her to the major projects we have outlined, including SMRs in the Darlington area. I will also refer her to the strategy itself, which has a national electricity strategy to come and a charging infrastructure strategy to come. In relation to tailpipe emissions, this is an area of disagreement between us and the official opposition. We know automaking can exist in concert with strong emissions standards. We saw that with the California emissions standards, which we all embrace and adopt.”
“I invite my colleagues opposite to reflect on the prospect of how these measures will benefit their communities. This strategy, which focuses on investment, electrification sustainability and the workers, is part of a fifth era of automaking in Canada. It is one in which we are still deeply connected to the United States, but we have to grow our interdependence to attract new investments from other countries and spread that investment across Canada. It is one that recognizes that we are connected, but that by taking these measures, we can be more sovereign. It is a set of bold choices, and I urge the opposition and all Canadians to look at the benefits of this strategy. For those reasons, I will be opposing this motion.”
“I have not accompanied my colleagues, but I know the member for Windsor West appreciates the presence of the NextStar plant. I know my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South appreciates the presence of the PowerCo plant and the government investments there. Maybe they cannot say they support these government investments in these jobs, but we know they appreciate the jobs there. We know those communities are benefiting. We know that when the mayor of St. Thomas says no one has seen him stop smiling, it is because he has the sense that the direction we are going toward in attracting investment, building on the workforce we have and embracing the electrification sustainability future that we, the planet and consumers want and need is good for his community.”
“It is a plant that has been recognized by JD Power, and by Toyota internally, as being a top-in-the-world plant. It is a company that has never had a layoff in its 40 years of presence in Canada. In that moment, the members I referred to and I were aligned. It was a proud moment for Canada and southern Ontario. It was a sign of what can be done. It was also a sign of the future of this sector, because, indeed, Toyota has the potential down the road to have an electric vehicle platform made at the Woodstock plant. It is manufacturing only hybrids there, going from solely an internal combustion engine to a hybrid vehicle option now. This has the benefit of going where Canadians are going, where manufacturing is going and where consumers are going.”
“We actually have policies that help reinforce our trade position, including the strengthening of the remission framework in the auto strategy. Basically, if we build it here, we can import more cars here for sale tariff-free. That is the basic sketch of the trade remission strategy. We think it works and it will have the effect of reducing some of the concerns the official opposition has. In the spirit of cross-partisanship of recent days, I want to refer to a couple of things. I had the privilege of being at the Toyota plant with the rollout of the new RAV4 hybrid 2026 edition in Woodstock. I was joined by my friends from Oxford , Cambridge and Kitchener South—Hespeler . We heard about the plant, the team members and the quality of that plant.”
“We have had hundreds of questions from the official opposition about the auto strategy or related to auto policy, either here or in committee, yet there is almost never a mention of the trade context that has caused us to be in this situation to begin with. I would invite the opposition members to join us in condemning the illegal and unjustified tariffs in any intervention they make, as I am doing right now, so that we can be unified and press back, as, indeed, automaking areas of the United States are doing against the illegal and unjustified tariffs, to indicate that we are all in this together. If we do that, I think we are more likely to get a trade result that will be better for Canada. Luckily, we do not need just words.”
“The third part of the strategy is an important set of supports for workers. My colleague, the Minister of Jobs and Families , has referred to the important role of EI eligibility for those workers who have been laid off and making sure that it is available quickly. The strategy also includes $570 million for up to 66,000 workers to engage in work sharing. These are the kinds of supports we need if we are all in it together. (1055) Underlying this three-part strategy of investment, electricity sustainability and a focus on the workers, whom I will say a bit more about at the end of my speech, is the trade context. I was a bit disappointed that the motion made no mention of the trade context.”
“They are looking for that little prime that helps them decide, “Yes, I want that electric vehicle, which is better for the planet, is great for driving and can get me from to place to place.” They want the reassurance that they can, in fact, get from place to place with a bit of support for charging along the way. This investment and the announcement of a national electricity strategy are key to that. Again, the fifth era of automobile making in Canada is about the plants and the parts, but it is also about the software. It is about the electricity infrastructure that we need to build from coast to coast, which will actually make Canada's auto sector spread further and create economic benefit, not just in southern Ontario, but across Canada. That is the second part of the strategy.”
“We know that in cities, like those in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, multi-unit residential buildings that have scarcely available street parking need more electric charging. This strategy will unlock the massive Canadian sector that is ready and primed, including companies like Parkland, which is in the more conventional energy space to embrace the electric future by providing investments that do not, in this case, benefit just southern Ontario, but spread across Canada. This kind of investment is what consumers are looking for. They are looking for that help to reduce their range anxiety.”
“We are now saying that tailpipe emissions standards work, they have the effect of reducing our emissions and they have the effect of driving, in a way that is useful and collaborative with the automakers, the kinds of efficiencies and climate change-reducing measures we need. I was quite disappointed to hear, and it was news to me, that the opposition does not embrace those tailpipe emissions standards in the auto strategy. I welcome what their suggestion would be on that. I also want to refer to the charging infrastructure that was included in this announcement. There is over $1 billion for that. We know that in rural Canada and in cold-weather places throughout Canada, there is a desire for more charging infrastructure.”
“administration is considering measures that would completely undermine the current tailpipe emissions standard-setting authority that exists in the United States, so there is a major question for Canada. As we look at this next generation of automaking, which is going to be electric, in line with evolving consumer standards and consumer tastes and in line with the climate priorities that we all embrace, where are we going? What kinds of standards do we want? What kinds of environmental standards do we want? This new auto strategy embraces the use of tailpipe emissions standards, which have been so effective. Canada has, historically, copied the Californian standards, and Californian standards are what helped drive the manufacturing footprint of North America and the world to be more sustainable.”
“The national electricity strategy, which is under our auto strategy, embraces where people are going. I would note that it involves potential rebates, not for companies, but for consumers. It is the consumers who will be benefiting from these rebates. They will be buying vehicles, often with Canadian-made parts. It also involves rebates to manufacturers, whom we are actively courting, for setting up new manufacturing facilities here in Canada. These are rebates that follow on from a policy that is embraced by such automaking giants as Korea, Japan and Mexico, all of which have EV rebates and manufacture EVs. This is part of the movement where Canadians are going and where the sector is going. There are two other key parts. I mentioned the tailpipe emissions standard. Right now, the U.S.”
“The policy-makers of that time made a brave choice in embracing that, despite the political fallout, despite the prospect that it might be alienating to some people currently in the sector and despite the fact that it might alienate some sense of national identity, because our national identity around automotive production was so tied to American automaking. (1050) Those choices by those policy-makers decades ago had the benefit of attracting automakers that are now responsible for almost three-quarters of the automotive production in Canada this year. It was those choices to invite new investment and a new way of doing things that have set us up to be at the place where we are now, still manufacturing automobiles by the hundreds of thousands, even despite the tremendous trade threats.”
“I was disappointed by my colleague's response to my question, because the motion implies that the auto strategy, in their words, does not need to be fixed by abandoning that policy, which is very key to our approach. I think there is quite a fundamental difference. I continue to be disappointed. I have been in the House now for nine months. I still have not heard an idea for fighting climate change from the other side that finds traction with the other side. The really important thing about the electrification and sustainability aspects of this policy is that they are intimately connected to that fifth era. I referred to the third era, in which Japanese automakers were bringing the kinds of vehicles that consumers wanted with the kinds of production standards that were not yet known to people in Canada.”
“There are investments that have allowed Toyota, for instance, in Cambridge and Woodstock to manufacture only RAV4 hybrids, which indicates the evolution of consumer tastes. New investment is fundamental to economic growth. New investment is what this auto strategy delivers. New investment is the first part of our auto strategy. The second part of our auto strategy relates to electrification and sustainability. There are a number of elements, and I want to go through them in turn. First, my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul mentioned the electric vehicle availability standard. We have decided, in consultation with the sector, to remove that and go to a tailpipe emission standard.”
“They create well-paying spinoff jobs that continue to depend on those excellent auto workers who have been working in the sector for decades, and they build on the existing automotive footprint that is already there. The $3-billion strategic response fund dedicated to the auto sector, which is part of our auto strategy, is a key part of the work that is going to help us usher in this fifth era of automobile production in Canada, but it is also building on a recent track record of investment. The Minister of Industry is in active discussions with a number of companies to attract more investment. I will note that the Conservative motion did not mention some of the recent investments that have been announced in Windsor and St. Thomas. There are recent investments being made right now by Ford in Oakville to retool its plant.”
“Obviously, Canadians are buying some vehicles that are manufactured in Canada, but the primary destination for Canadian-made vehicles is currently not Canada; it is elsewhere. The auto strategy has a really good three-part approach to build up and defend the sector. First, it really focuses on new investment. It repositions the strategic response fund. We now have a $3-billion auto-dedicated strategic response fund so that Canada's federal government can partner with others that are making those new investments in their plants. We know new investments in auto manufacturing, like so many other manufacturing investments, do not create the number of jobs that they used to, but that is okay.”
“As members probably know, this is a sector that is incredibly contributive to the economy of Canada and, in particular, southern Ontario. In 2025, it contributed approximately $16.8 billion to our GDP and 125,000 direct jobs in the sector through assembly, parts and related jobs, not to mention the related jobs in dealerships or servicing. The entire economy of transportation that is auto-related in Canada is a very strong one. Of the 1.2 million to 1.3 million vehicles we manufacture now, approximately 90% are currently exported to the United States. The opposition is telling a bit of a story around the manufacturing sector. It seems to be implying that we are selling primarily to Canadians.”
“(1045) [ English ] We are now in the fifth era of automobile manufacturing in Canada, a time when our old alliances and our old ways of doing things are under tremendous stress, primarily from the trade threat to the south but also because of new technologies, new consumer tastes and the new desires that we have to build the country in a different way. This is an era of opportunity for Canada. The auto strategy that we have put forward builds on the incredibly strong capital base, technological base and base of both consumers and workers, who are the best workers in the world and I will get to that shortly, to make this transition so that we are no longer solely dependent on one market. It will allow consumers and workers to share equally in that future.”
“This development was accelerated by the 2008 economic crisis, and governments chose to establish closer partnerships with American automakers as well as automakers in Japan and other countries. At the end of the fourth era, governments partnered with automakers to attract investment in the sector. We are now entering the fifth era of the automobile manufacturing industry in Canada and across North America. This new era is being shaped, as the Prime Minister noted, by a rupture in the free trade system and the world order and the need for middle powers like Canada to find new partners.”
“However, the emergence of Japanese manufacturers, along with their methods and ability to manufacture automobiles more efficiently, influenced subsequent government policies, here as elsewhere in North America. It also influenced the public's preferences, as they wanted to buy more Japanese cars. In the 1980s, the country's leaders and public policy makers, our predecessors, decided to invite Japanese manufacturers to set up operations in Canada, notably in southern Ontario. It was beneficial for us in that it created more jobs and new manufacturing facilities, and it grew our economy. That era also lasted about 20 years. We then entered the fourth era of the North American auto economy, the era of government subsidies worldwide.”
“[ Translation ] We are entering the fifth era of auto manufacturing in Canada. The Prime Minister recalled the early days of the auto industry in Canada, a history that began in the 19th century. For most of the 1900s, Canada had its own auto manufacturing plants. [ English ] The auto pact really brought in the second era of automobile manufacturing. [ Translation ] The auto pact between Canada and the United States really boosted Canada's automotive economy, especially in southern Ontario. It created thousands of jobs and generated billions of dollars for our economy. That era was beneficial for our economy. It led to the development of both automotive facilities and the workforce. These workers continue to lead today's automotive sector, and we still depend on that sector, particularly in southern Ontario.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue today. I would like to start by sharing my condolences on behalf of the people of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park with the people of Tumbler Ridge and of Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation on the horrific attacks of the last 48 hours. May the light that we all generate in our worlds help them and shine with them in their moments of darkness. I want to thank my colleagues from Kildonan—St. Paul and Barrie South—Innisfil for their interventions. This issue matters because we are an auto-producing nation; we are a driving nation. Automobile production is fundamental to the economy not only of southern Ontario but across Canada. The automotive experience is something that is fundamental to almost all Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and I look forward to participating in the debate shortly. The text of the motion says, “the House call on the government to fix their auto strategy by”, and then lists three items. What is not listed in the three items that the opposition is saying need to be fixed is the increased tailpipe emissions standard that we are proposing in our auto strategy. Does my colleague and her side support that tailpipe emissions standard?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is what the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association had to say about today's announcement. It “welcomes the government’s automotive strategy announced today. Funding to support renewed purchase incentives and a robust charging infrastructure strategy will help continue to drive EV adoption, and CVMA members are well-positioned to support the shift to electrification through diverse product offerings.” That sounds like Canadian sovereignty to me.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the member and the party opposite think we are on the wrong side of Canadian sovereignty, they have another thing coming. Our approach is all about Canadian sovereignty. It is all about investing in the companies that invest in us. It is all about embracing the future of electrification. It is all about embracing our workers, who are the best workers in the world. For the members opposite to talk down Canadian sovereignty or to talk down the sector in this moment of real challenge, when we have an opportunity to solve it, is really beneath them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but once again it is the opposite. Our announcement today includes the development of a national network of EV charging stations with an investment of $1.5 billion. It is a national project that includes Quebec to welcome this green future and electric vehicles to Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we welcome these electric vehicles because our rebate applies to countries with which we have free trade agreements, including European countries. Our auto strategy includes many incentives to encourage people to adopt electric vehicles and make the future as electric as possible here in Canada. That is exactly what our policy is doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition that was brought to my attention by Federico Sanchez and was signed by 44,869 Canadians. Clearly it has struck a chord. Political honesty and public trust are critical cornerstones of our democracy. This petition touches on those themes and draws inspiration from a white paper by the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research, in Wales, where mechanisms are being considered to formally hold politicians accountable when they commit deliberate deception.”
“Therefore, this is an important intervention in this space. We know there is an ISO standard around food labelling and groceries, but we know these kinds of things can be improved. I heard from my friend from the Bloc that this is the thin end of the wedge of creeping federalism. I am not so sure. This is a very useful intervention to help bring some further discipline into the marketplace, and I look forward to hearing more in the debate.”
“This bill is very important, because some of those issues that I spoke about at the beginning of this address around shrinkflation, those experiences that my students addressed, have not completely gone away. Each of us has had an experience, especially in certain large grocery stores, of going to pull down a package of granola bars if we are sending kids off to school with some granola bars or some yogourt, and the print is just a bit too fine and the unit price is even finer. There might be a litre of yogourt, but maybe that litre of yogourt is now 800 millilitres, or maybe that 650 millilitres is now 600 millilitres. It is very hard to tell the difference between the costs of certain things, especially in this dynamic, changing environment where consumer tastes are often changing and where packaging is changing.”
“In urban ridings and in urban communities, there is sometimes a bit more distance from our food and more of a sense that maybe we are not connected, and we all go to farmers markets in different places where we can feel a bit more connected. In urban communities across Canada, there are food processors, including a couple of major ones in my community. I know that they are going to be looking forward to hearing about the food processing fund that is going to be available to food manufacturers across Canada. These measures are really doing a number of things to raise the importance of fresh, local food. Some provinces have a real focus on that. I know our buy Canadian policies will help promote that as well.”
“In fact, this government, with, we understand, some co-operation from the other side, is now endorsing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. I know constituents in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park will be very pleased to hear that the benefit will bring, for a family of four, up to $1,890, and for a single person, up to $950, with the first increase in that benefit taking place in July. It is a really important measure to address food affordability issues. We are also directing $500 million from the strategic response fund to support food processors. I know in my riding there are a number of food processors.”
“Each of us in our communities is trying to promote the local food retailers and the people who are producing within their community, so I had cause recently to visit Marvelous by Fred in High Park, introduced to me by Angela Robertson of the Bloor West Village Business Improvement Area, the oldest business improvement area in the world. At that bakery, I got six plain croissants and a bag of meringues. The croissants, of course, are not taxed, and the meringues, as a certain kind of processed food, are. We know that the policies that we have and the policies that governments of different stripes have passed for years have made sure that almost all groceries, and the vast majority of groceries that are of interest to people in the House when we talk about food affordability, are not taxed. That continues to be the case.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will just read out the prices. At Maple Produce on Roncesvalles Avenue, people can get two tins of blackberries for the very affordable price of $5, and that is quoted here. Then there are raspberries, two tins for $6. I have some other things here. I do not know exactly what I bought here in each case. I see the member for Peterborough , whose riding may well have produced some of the products, although I understand that she is more in the area of carnivorous offerings at her facilities. However, I will note that at Maple Produce, people can get a lot of good, fresh food, fruit and vegetables, and I do not see tax. There is no mention of any tax on any of these items.”
“That is, I think, one of the inspirations of this bill. I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. The minister and her department, which administers the code of conduct, have also put up a number of information resources that are very important, to help Canadians understand a bit more of their experience at the grocery store: in particular, the grocery affordability web page and the food price data hub. I listen to my colleagues across the aisle, and I am still hearing a few of the old hits around grocery affordability. I want to remind them of some of the reality of what is happening in groceries today and what is not happening. I have brought my receipt from Maple Produce on Roncesvalles Avenue, a very— An hon. member: That is a prop.”
“I was able to bring those issues to the deputy prime minister and minister of finance at the time. We also know that since the COVID era, and during the COVID era, the former government did make a number of responses that really helped reduce food inflation and deal with some of the more problematic policies that were being implemented by grocers. There was, for instance, an injunction on covenants that prevented other grocers from opening near grocers. There is a grocery code of conduct that has had an important impact on controlling and patrolling some of the behaviour of some of the large grocers that would otherwise, maybe, have more space to be increasing prices. In the specific case of a labelling standard, we know that federal, provincial and territorial ministers did not quite get there.”
“They started to notice that different products were even different shapes or different sizes. I remember very well a student who worked in the butcher department of one major grocer. He told me very directly that he was being effectively asked to implement shrinkflation policies within that grocer's retail operation. The students actually brought that forward to me as a professor, and it was significant enough, with enough of a voice. We happened to be doing a pre-budget consultation with the former minister of finance. Actually, it was such a demonstration of what young people were experiencing; not only were they being affected by some of the food security issues, but they were actually being forced to implement some of the policies within grocery stores that were having a deleterious effect.”
“My colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells referred to the COVID-era effects that were experienced in groceries. At that time, I was a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University. I see my friend here from Victoria, who was also teaching at the time. I remember understanding the student perspective on these issues, as students were often cooped up, and they would eventually be able to go out of their classrooms, out into the community to get the food they needed for the week. A lot of students these days are doing part-time work. In my particular case at Toronto Metropolitan University, a lot of my students were actually the ones working in these grocery chains, and they started to notice something. They started to notice they were being asked to move things on different shelves.”