Debates of April 30th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Sovereign Wealth Fund

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to clarify his thoughts.

A few minutes ago, he told us that he believed the mechanism underlying the Canada health transfer to the provinces should be amended during future negotiations at the next federal-provincial meeting. What exactly does my colleague mean? What is he proposing? What is his opinion?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I meant to say, and what I did say, is that this formula, which determines the Canada health transfer escalator, is not permanent. It is a formula that is adjusted over time.

I was present for the negotiations that led to the establishment of the formula at the time. This formula can always be adjusted; it can always be updated. If that is the intention of the federal and provincial governments in the years to come, so much the better. It can be done. We are not locked into a framework that cannot change; the framework can change.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating that it has been just over a year now since this government was elected. Virtually from day one, there has been a focus on building a strong Canada, a Canada that is strong for all. Part of that means looking at major projects.

Today the opposition has chosen to talk about a wealth fund. These types of initiatives that the government has brought forward are meant to build a stronger and healthier economy.

I wonder if my colleague could provide more of a holistic view on the fact that, over the last year, the government has taken many initiatives to support Canadians in many different ways, because our focus has been to build a stronger and healthier country.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have moved along several parallel tracks. We are trying to speed up major projects; this is very important. We have also put in place different programs to support Canadian businesses and companies affected directly by tariffs in the steel, aluminum, auto and copper industries, with direct assistance to those companies. We are also working, keeping in mind that Canadian families need assistance, need help, and we have put in place several social—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot build wealth by going further into debt. A sovereign wealth fund requires one thing above everything else, wealth, and yet, after 11 years, the Liberal government wants to create a sovereign wealth fund using $25 billion of borrowed money on top of the $1.3 trillion of national debt. Let us call it what it is. This is not a sovereign wealth fund. This is a sovereign debt fund, and Canadians are the ones being handed the bill.

Ask Canadians how wealthy they feel. Ask the 2.2 million Canadians relying on food banks. Ask the young families who have quietly given up on home ownership. Ask the parents who are trying to stretch every dollar to put food on the kitchen table. This is not what wealth feels like.

Let us look at the record: $1.3 trillion in debt, the worst housing affordability in the G7, the lowest investment per worker, food prices rising faster than anywhere else and, now, interest payments climbing to nearly $81 billion a year by 2030. That is over $3,400 per household just to service debt. This is not a foundation for wealth. Canada should be the wealthiest country in the world, but it starts with honesty. It starts with discipline. It starts with calling things by the proper name. This is not wealth, and Canadians deserve better.

This plan reminds me of something. It is like someone maxing out their credit card and then calling their bank and saying that they did not spend it; they invested it in themselves. That does not work with one's bank and it certainly does not work for our economy.

Sovereign wealth funds like those in Norway or Saudi Arabia are built on surpluses. They unlock the resources. They generate wealth. They then invest it. In Canada, the Liberal government has been blocking our resources and delaying projects. We are losing investment. The Liberals then borrow money and they are trying to call it wealth.

Canadians understand something simple, that we cannot tax and spend our way to affordability. They also understand that a government that cannot live within its means will never make life affordable for those who must live within theirs. They also understand something hopeful, that when Canada builds, Canada wins. We win when we say yes to projects, yes to energy and yes to innovation. When a government gets out of the way, opportunity, investment and prosperity follow.

We do not need more illusions. We do not need more bureaucracies or layers of complication. We need a country that believes in itself again. When we do, there is no limit to what Canadians can build.

We have seen this movie before, and Canadians know how it ends. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Canada Growth Fund and the green slush fund or Sustainable Development Technology Canada, all have different names but the same promise, to trust them and they will unlock investment. After all that, Canada now has the worst investment record in the G7. Nearly $1 trillion has left our country since 2015, as per RBC.

Let us consider the Canada Infrastructure Bank, for example. It was supposed to deploy $35 billion, but it is billions of dollars behind. After years in operation, it could not even cover its own operating costs for the first seven years. It is a bank that cannot sustain itself, but I will talk about what did deliver: $8 million in bonuses to executives in one year. Canadians are lining up at food banks, and insiders are lining up for bonuses.

That is not investment. That is misaligned priorities. We can do better than this. Canada does not need more experiments. It does not need more bureaucracies, Crown corporations or transition offices. We need to get back to the basics. When we do, confidence in investment will come back.

Here is a simple question: If a project is good enough to be supported, why not just approve it? Instead, the Liberal government wants another Crown corporation, another transition office and another layer where companies must seek political approval. This time it is even more centralized, because there is no truly independent investment board. Everything flows back to the prime minister. That is not how we attract investment. That is how we discourage it, because investors do not want more politics. They want certainty. They want clear rules. They want a fair process and equal opportunity.

This is the bigger issue. Instead of unlocking Canada's potential, the Prime Minister has created 13 new government entities in just one year. That is more bureaucracy, more layers and more distance between Canadians and opportunity. Canadians are not asking for more government. They are asking for a government that unlocks our resources and unlocks our people.

The best economy is not one where a few are chosen. It is one where everyone has a chance, not just the people who are politically connected, not the friends of the politicians and not the individuals or corporations that are hand-picked by the government at the time. Success should be earned, not granted or hand-picked. Canada works best when it is open, when it is fair and when it is free. When that happens, Canadians do not just compete; Canadians lead. We have seen it before.

Canada does not have a funding problem. It has a confidence problem. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business calls it the “entrepreneurial drought”, because for six quarters in a row now, more businesses have been closing than opening. Only 18% say that it is a good time to start a business. That should concern every one of us, because when entrepreneurs stop believing, growth stops, momentum stops and jobs leave.

Here is some good news: Canada has everything it needs. It has talent, resources, ideas and people. However, what it needs is for the Liberal government to just get out of the way. That means lower barriers, faster approvals, a system that rewards hard work, and a country where investment flows, not because it is forced but because it makes sense.

Canada is not a country in decline. It is a country being held back by the Liberal government. The moment we remove the barriers I have spoken about, and the moment we restore confidence, this country will grow, will build and will lead. Let us start by building wealth, because Canada has everything it needs to create it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is open. A year ago, Canadians voted in a new Prime Minister and a new government that have been aggressively pursuing investments and increased exportation. We have now put in a fund that will draw in literally billions of additional dollars. We are going to see a stronger and healthier economy, because we have a government and a Prime Minister who understand the economy and the types of things we need to do in order to grow the economy into the future.

The Conservatives consistently stand up and say, “Just get out of the way.” Is there a country that the member opposite believes is doing a good job of following her model?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not rely on theory. I rely on the examples that entrepreneurs tell me about. Here is just one. An entrepreneur in my riding applied for a permit to expand operations. He had a contract in hand. The permit took so long that he was at risk of losing the contract. He decided to fly down to the U.S. Within days, he got permits and grants. He walked across the street and got financing. He came back, and he still did not have an update on his Canadian permit. That is what is driving investments out of our country.

We do not need announcements. We do not need a forum. We do not need thousands of trips around the world. We need to fix the fundamentals.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw on my colleague's expertise in the field of finance.

We in the Bloc Québécois are concerned about this sovereign wealth fund. First, public funds are being invested in a framework whose lack of transparency is concerning to us.

Has my colleague been able to estimate the total cost of the public funds that will need to be invested in the sovereign wealth fund, particularly to pay the interest on the $25 billion, but also to pay for all the tax credits that could be offered to encourage investment in this fund? Also, what does she think of the notion that public funds will be invested in infrastructure projects, particularly oil-related ones?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we do not have a lot of details on the fund, yet we know that it will resort to borrowed money to fund the seed capital at first. We know that this makes no sense, because sovereign wealth funds function under an environment where they draw on real surpluses, where there is fiscal responsibility and where they are independent of political influence. Here, we would have the power concentrated on the prime minister because he would hand-pick the projects. There is no clear mandate on these projects. There is no fiscal transparency or discipline in the government. The fund will not work.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on comparisons that have been made between this new fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We were told by expert witnesses at committee on Monday that the Infrastructure Bank was failed industrial policy and that the fund would be just more of the same. We have heard defence of the Infrastructure Bank. In fact, one of the Liberal members claimed that it was leveraging private sector money. It was promised to do five dollars for every one dollar of public funds. We were also told at the finance committee that there would be about 60¢ of private investment for every dollar. Could the member comment on the failures of the Infrastructure Bank and how they correlate to this new future boondoggle?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the comparison to the Canada Infrastructure Bank is interesting. There was an entire study done on the Canada Infrastructure Bank at a committee, and it was recommended that it be closed down. We see by the statistics that it took seven years to be able to generate sufficient funds to even cover its operating costs—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' new fund they have announced should never be called a “sovereign wealth fund”. A sovereign wealth fund is a fund that takes surplus government revenue, usually from resource export revenue, and invests that surplus internationally. That is what a sovereign wealth fund, by any normal understanding of the term, means.

The government in fact even explicitly compared its new fund to actual sovereign wealth funds, like those found in Norway and Saudi Arabia, but the government has no surplus. It will borrow 100% of the funds to seed its fund, so it is not a sovereign wealth fund at all. It will become a Liberal slush fund that will inevitably become a plaything for the Prime Minister and his Liberal insiders, bought on national credit.

The government's own announcement said, “the government will provide $25 billion over 3 years, on a cash basis, to seed the [fund].” Well, the Liberals just tabled an economic statement with a $67-billion deficit, without counting the $8.3 billion the government will need to seed the fund initially, which is in the cash flow statement and does not show up as a balance sheet entry.

The Liberals enter this new debt with an offsetting asset that produces nothing, but Canadians will still have to pay the debt borrowed to seed the new fund. The fund is created by new debt to be repaid by Canadians, not created by surpluses invested on behalf of Canadians for their future. This is going to be a $25-billion hit on the national credit card. There is simply no denying this. The government's own announcements and fiscal update confirm it.

The government announced, “The Fund will invest in strategic Canadian projects and companies alongside other investors—with a clear objective to achieve commercial returns to build the wealth of Canada.” Well, that sounds wonderful, does it not? Who could be against Canadian projects and investing in companies that deliver commercial returns for the wealth of all Canadians?

However, the skilful announcement cannot hide what this really is. The problem is that borrowing money and handing it to politicians and their hand-picked cronies to invest in companies that are chasing preferential regulatory treatment, subsidies and self-enrichment, all done on the nation's credit card, is absolutely the worst possible way to go about building Canada and the wealth of Canadians. The best way to build Canada and the wealth of Canadians is to repeal the laws that the Liberals passed over the last 10 years that have resulted in capital flight from Canada and in economic stagnation.

In 2015, the government inherited a balanced budget from the previous government. The New York Times, hardly a Conservative media organ, declared that Canada then had the most prosperous middle class in the world. Homes were affordable for most people. Food was affordable. A pipeline to the west coast was approved. Kinder Morgan was preparing to invest billions of dollars to expand the Trans Mountain west coast pipeline. The TransCanada pipeline project, as it was then called, was doing the preliminary work for an application to build an east coast pipeline. This was what was on the table in 2015.

Then the Liberals formed their government in November 2015, and their election promise was to run three years of modest deficits to fund unprecedented investments in national infrastructure, resulting in economic growth that would lead the budget to balance itself. However, the very first thing they did was cancel the existing pipeline approval for the west coast. They did it by a ministerial order before Parliament even met in November 2015.

If they had not done that, the west coast pipeline would already be built. Half a million barrels of Canadian oil would be on world markets today. At today's price, that is $50 million a day in Canadian energy exports. That is nearly $20 billion a year at today's prices. Now the Liberals are having a sort of out-of-body experience, wondering why we cannot supply our allies and the world market with energy.

Before anyone says, “Wait a minute, Trudeau's gone. All the leave-it-in-the-ground Liberals have been shuffled off to the back row and off to the sides or given cushy diplomatic appointments,” let us not forget, let no one in the House forget that, in 2021, the now Prime Minister appeared at the industry committee and was questioned by the opposition leader. He was asked about that decision to cancel the west coast pipeline, and he said then that it was “the right decision.”

These Liberals have been wrong about everything for the past 10 years. Their deficits were not a transformational investment into productivity-enhancing infrastructure construction that allowed the budget to balance itself. Their deficits quickly became structural and have now spiralled ever upward since.

It did actually come to a head in the late 2024 session. Does anybody remember what was happening in December 2024? That was when a projected $30-billion deficit for this year was so bad that Chrystia Freeland refused to sign off on it. Do members remember that? Remember when $30 billion was enough for her to resign as the finance minister? Remember the wave of resignations and retirement announcements? Remember when fiscal management finally became the focused issue and finally forced Trudeau out?

The man then who was supposed to be this serious, experienced, credentialed, technocratic adult in the room who would restore the health of Canada's finances after nine years of neglect is now doubling down on the state-led, rent-seeking, crony capitalism of the Trudeau years and has doubled that deficit, which was such a crisis for how huge it was at the time.

Consider now the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Nine years ago, the government said that this new thing it gleefully announced would transform Canada. Its members said that it would leverage private sector investment and unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment. It was all nonsense. Their press release said that there would be four private dollars invested for every public dollar.

Do members remember Bill Morneau? He went even beyond his own announcement and said that it would be $5 to every one dollar, in his speech, where he announced it. Here we are nine years later, with billions of dollars still not invested, no projects done and the real number of leveraged private sector investment is 66¢ on the dollar. Now the current Prime Minister wants to do the same thing with this new fund.

I do not have time to explain all the things that are wrong with the Infrastructure Bank. This is the same industrial policy that failed with the Infrastructure Bank. With this system, the government makes rules that kill investment, then sets up an office staffed by the Prime Minister's appointees, cherry-picks which projects it does not want the existing laws of Canada to apply to and then leaves itself free to create whatever future rules or subsidies to force the taxpayer to guarantee the success of whatever project it has chosen. This is what the Prime Minister has more or less admitted himself.

All the government needs to do to undo the damage of the past 10 years is to repeal its anti-development laws, rein in its deficits and lower or repeal its taxes and investment will flow. It will flow to its logical conclusion of projects built, jobs created, taxes collected, public services funded, taxes lowered and people free to live in comfort, plenty and freedom.

That is why we call on the government to cancel this Liberal slush fund that is being charged to the national credit card. Its approach is not free enterprise; it is state control. It is the approach that always leads to decline, poverty and, eventually, it follows all the way to its logical conclusion: loss of liberty. I call on the government to not proceed with yet another Liberal slush fund.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, what I find really unfortunate is that the official opposition has about 15 days a year to bring intelligent debate to the House. On top of that, they have about 45 minutes a day to hold the government to account. However, instead of engaging in real debates and real discussions, they spend their time reciting slogans and criticizing everything the government does. Today, we spent the day arguing about the name of a sovereign wealth fund when, in fact, the purpose of this fund is to build Canada strong, and that is what Canadians need right now.

On this side of the House, we are responsible, we are ambitious and we continue to deliver for Canadians. We are capable of imagining the future and we are not afraid to make the necessary decisions.

Do the Conservatives have a plan or an alternative? I have not heard them talk about that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a shame, because she must not have listened to my speech. I was very clear about the approach the Liberals should take and the approach they should not take. It takes a staggering amount of arrogance to judge and presume what is important to the opposition, and to say that we should not use an opposition day to oppose a terrible policy being proposed by the government and to propose alternatives. That is what opposition days are for.

In question period, we ask important questions that need to be answered. We do not need to be told by the government what questions we should ask or which of its policies we should oppose or propose alternatives to.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that I have the support of the member for Carleton.

It is with a great sense of responsibility and much hope for the future that I rise today at second reading of my first bill here in the House of Commons, Bill C-267, which seeks to establish a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and home appliances. This the first bill I am introducing in the house, as I just said, and I am proud to table it on behalf of families in Bourassa and Montreal and all Canadians, who deserve better when it comes to their appliances.

Let me start with a simple image. Someone comes home and their dishwasher no longer works. They call a technician who says that the part is no longer available or that the cost of the repair exceeds that of a new device. They are then forced to pay $500 or $1,000, sometimes more, to replace a device that technically could have been repaired. Millions of Canadians experience this situation every year. This is not an accident. It is the result of an economic model that favours replacement over repair and leaves consumers without information, without choice and often without recourse. This bill seeks to change that.

In the example I just gave, maybe the part simply no longer exists, or the information or the repair procedure is not available. It is very unclear. It is getting very difficult for the repair person to do the repair. As I said, sometimes it costs more to repair an appliance than to replace it even if a person would technically prefer to keep it running rather than throw it out and buy another.

This bill would change that.

This bill is about giving consumers more transparency, more durability and more repairability. This bill is important because today, too many Canadian consumers buy appliances and electronic devices without knowing how long they will last, whether spare parts will be available or how long software support will be provided.

This state of affairs is costing our families dearly. It forces people to replace appliances prematurely when they could otherwise be repaired. It also increases the amount of electronic waste, one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world.

Right now too many Canadians are forced to replace products that could and should be repaired. That also contributes to increased electronic waste, which is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world.

As I said, this bill would make a real difference because it calls on the federal government to establish a national framework to inform consumers and improve the durability and repairability of appliances sold here in Canada. This approach is economical, environmentally friendly and pro-consumer. It is economical because an appliance that lasts longer costs less over time. It is environmentally friendly because repairing something rather than throwing it out reduces waste and conserves resources. Lastly, this approach is pro-consumer because it restores a better balance between manufacturers on the one hand and people on the other.

This is good for families, good for the environment and good for a more responsible economy.

I want to talk numbers. I want to talk hard facts. Electronic waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. Every year, millions of tonnes of devices that are still functional or repairable are thrown away. In Canada, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of electronic equipment are thrown away annually, a significant proportion of which could and should have been repaired had the parts, information and support been available.

The problem is not just environmental, nor is it merely an economic issue; it is also a question of fairness. When I say fairness, I am obviously referring to fairness between the manufacturer on one side and the consumer on the other. It is also a matter of purchasing power. At a time when the cost of living is the number one concern for Canadian households and families are struggling to make ends meet, the forced replacement of appliances represents an unfair burden. This is not a luxury. A fridge is essential. A dishwasher, a stove, a television, a computer, a smart phone—all these appliances are now essential to daily life. Our digital economy has also become essential.

Anyone who buys one of these devices today never knows how long it will last. No one knows whether replacement parts will be available in five years' time. No one knows whether the manufacturer will provide the software support after two years. There is a fundamental asymmetry of information between manufacturers, who know everything, and consumers, who know almost nothing. This asymmetry comes at a high cost to Canadian families.

On top of that is a phenomenon that experts refer to as planned obsolescence. It means that devices are deliberately designed to not last and to not be repaired, in order to force consumers to replace them. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a well-documented reality, recognized by regulators around the world, one that is currently being addressed through legislation in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada must act, and that is exactly what Bill C-267 proposes.

In addition, there is a phenomenon that specialists call planned obsolescence, with devices deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable, to force replacement. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented reality recognized by regulators around the world.

I want to be clear about the nature of this bill, what it is proposing and what it is not proposing. This is not a rigid set of regulations being imposed on the industry from the top down. This is not a government telling manufacturers what to do in minute detail. It is certainly not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. This bill establishes a national framework that is flexible, progressive, collaborative and based on extensive consultation with the provinces and territories, industry and consumer advocacy groups.

Specifically, here is what the bill provides. It mandates the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework, in consultation with his provincial and territorial counterparts, that includes measures focused on minimal product durability, ensuring that appliances last a reasonable amount of time; repairability, so that consumers can have their appliances repaired using readily available parts, tools and information; the availability of spare parts, to ensure that manufacturers do not stop making them prematurely; access to technical documentation, so that independent repair technicians can work their trade; software support, so that updates are not used to render appliances that are still in perfectly good working order obsolete; informative labelling, so that consumers know how long their appliances will last before they buy them.

This national framework will have to be tabled in both chambers of Parliament within the next few months. Five years later, its effectiveness will be reviewed and a report will be submitted to Parliament.

It is a measured, transparent approach that respects parliamentary processes and would give the government the tools to act without presuming solutions before consulting all stakeholders and parties.

Canada is not starting from scratch, as I mentioned earlier. It is part of a global movement that has been gaining momentum over the past few years. In June 2024, the European Union adopted a directive on the right to repair, which covers a wide variety of appliances, including smart phones, tablets, washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators. This EU directive requires manufacturers to make spare parts available, to provide technical documentation to independent repair people and to not impede repairs through software updates.

Since 2021, the United Kingdom has been imposing similar requirements regarding the availability of spare parts for several categories of household appliances. In the United States, more than 20 states have passed or are in the process of passing laws on the right to repair with remarkable bipartisan support. Both Republicans and Democrats see this as a matter of consumer freedom and local economic competitiveness.

In practical terms, this means that large international manufacturers that sell their goods in Canada are already adapting to these new standards in their other markets. I am talking here about major manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Whirlpool and Apple. They have all announced programs to provide access to spare parts under international regulatory pressure. That means that adapting would impose very little burden on these large manufacturers here in Canada, since they are already meeting these requirements elsewhere.

This bill is not ahead of its time; it is catching up.

I want to be very clear: This bill is not an end in itself. It is not an objective we want to achieve. It is a serious starting point. It provides a legislative foundation that will help move the debate forward and that will allow us to hear from experts, consumer groups and industry stakeholders so that the bill can be strengthened in committee.

Who will benefit from this bill? First and foremost, it will benefit Canadian families. Second, it will benefit small repair businesses, those local shops that are often run by immigrants who come to this country. They are often craftspeople or tradespeople who are currently being deprived of access to parts. Third, it will benefit the environment. For every device that is repaired instead of replaced, a natural resource is preserved. Fourth, it will benefit the industry itself. This framework will deliver a more transparent market, clear standards and a level playing field for all manufacturers.

I will end where I began, by talking about Canadian families. Every day, in the riding of Bourassa, in the streets of Montreal North or Ahuntsic, I meet ordinary folks who are facing tough choices: seniors who have to choose between getting their fridge repaired and buying a new one; young families going into debt to replace a phone that could have been repaired; small business owners losing contracts because they cannot get the parts they need.

This bill sends them the message that we see them, we hear them and we are taking action. This is not a partisan or ideologically motivated bill. It is a common-sense bill that is based on the reality of Canadian families, supported by a global movement and built on collaboration. I am reaching out to my colleagues in the House, from all political parties and all regions, and asking them to vote to send this bill to committee, where we will be able to study it, improve it, hear from witnesses and make it stronger together. Repairing instead of replacing, informing instead of ignoring, collaborating instead of imposing: that is the spirit behind this bill. That is the spirit I am bringing to the House today.

This should not be a partisan issue—