Well, good morning, everybody. Thank you for joining us on this webinar today. With us is Hugh Williams and Kyle Larkin from IMPACT and also Daniel Fisher from AED. This morning, as you all know, we'll be talking about the right to repair in Canada. For those of you who have questions, please submit them down at the bottom of the screen and we'll answer all your questions as we can. This recording will be recorded so that later on you may watch this and listen to it, whatever you would like to do. With that, I will turn this over to you, Williams and Hugh. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you so much, Mr. Dexter. Really a pleasure to be here and pleasure to talk to the group about what's really becoming an important issue, not just in Canada, but North America and throughout the world. We'll jump right into it and get your mind frame into it. The idea here is we're going to talk a little bit about what right to repair is, where the legislative agenda sits in Canada because it's become quite amped up. Then from there, we'll walk you through the key messages that AED has been delivering and make sure that everybody's on the same page with respect to the issue and singing from the same songbook. At the end of it, there's going to be a Q&A session. We also hope that you'll engage with us as we start to set up even more one-on-one legislator meetings to make sure that the politicians in Ottawa and across the country really understand what right to repair is all about and how it impacts AED members. Let's begin and really talk about what right to repair is. We often use the phrase so-called right to repair. It's a right to modify. It's really a broad range of initiatives that are gaining traction at federal and provincial levels. A lot of that is coming out of politicians and consumer groups watching what's going on in the US. This has really begun to take steam over the last little while because of consumer electronics, cell phones, laptops, tablets, notoriously difficult to repair outside the mainstream, not to pick on any global manufacturer, but Apple has taken a lot of heat that people can't repair their iPhones and that they've had to be repaired. That has risen in the public discourse that people feel frustrated that they can't repair their own devices or take it to third-party outfits. As they're frustrated, they're talking to their political leaders about it. Now it's expanded almost to every other product that you can imagine that has embedded software in it. This includes off-road equipment, obviously, automobiles and home appliances. We've seen lots of legislative initiatives in the states be successful at the state level on right to repair. There's some initiatives that have taken place in the federal government of right to repair that I know Daniel Fisher is with us today who can talk about. I think all of these have come to give consumer advocates and consumers a viewpoint that they should have unfettered access to source codes, parts, diagnosis, repair modules. Again, in the equipment sector, proposals that would allow consumers of AEDs equipment to modify emission systems, safety mechanisms, and potentially modify performance as well. One of the things I think is really important about this is you'll hear right to repair thrown out in all kinds of different contexts. The context that we're most concerned about is how it impacts AED members. How do we ensure that AED members are protected? We'll talk a little bit too about the false narrative that's really given out that this is a problem in search of a solution. This is really being driven by some consumer advocates, but also by aftermarket repair folks that see this as an advantage to potentially get into the business that really naturally belongs between dealers and their manufacturers. Let me hit the next slide here. What is the Canadian status on this? How is it unfolding in Canada? In the last election in 2021, there was really a conversation that took place at the grassroots level and every party committed to bring in some kind of right to repair legislation. As I said, this includes cell phones, tablets, appliances were a big part of it. There's a huge frustrated appliance sector where appliances seem to be lasting a shorter period of time than ever. You really have a period where consumers are concerned that they can't repair these appliances and that's bled into every other sector. If you're in one sector, consumer demand, consumer complaints about this have broadened under the broad banner of right to repair. It means a little bit different for every politician and for every political party. Since the last federal election, there's been several pieces of policy legislation. We'll walk you through some of those at the federal level. Those have built on the party commitments to do something about right to repair. The issue is, I would say, is ramping up almost to a red hot level on Parliament Hill where I was in a series of meetings with members of Parliament this week and all of the members of Parliament want to talk about right to repair in one context or another. They want to know what right to repair means for different sectors. For them, they've got to be able to think through, do I support this? Do I not? What's the definition of it? Again, because it affects so many different sectors, you have politicians picking, yeah, I want to get involved in this sector on the iPhone repair issue and the appliance issue, but maybe I don't want to get into it on the vehicle or the heavy equipment side of the equation. Part of our role is to educate them on how all of this rolls out. In this particular section here, I'm going to talk about one of the bills that has been introduced into first reading in the House. This bill, C-244, is a private member's bill. Ordinarily, you might say, well, a private member's bill is not something to worry about. Well, there's a private member's bill lottery that takes place. If you're in that top 15, top 20, which this bill was drawn out of the 338 MPs, that bill is going to get introduced, but it's also going to get debated and voted on. This bill will definitely be in front of Parliament as we proceed here going forward. It's Bill C-244. I would say it's the most worrying of the acts. It's Wilson Mile from Richmond, BC. He's a Liberal Member of Parliament. It really seeks to amend the Copyright Act in order to circumvent the technological protection measures in the computer of heavy equipment would be included in farm equipment. What's most interesting about this bill is it was first introduced by an MP named Brian May, who's a Liberal Member of Parliament who's been re-elected. And Brian May has a hobby farm. And part of his complaint is that he's heard from farmers in his district that he thinks there's a problem. So he's put this forward, this bill in the last Parliament. His draw was not possible. He's also been elevated to be a Parliamentary Secretary. So he worked behind the scenes to give Wilson Mile, to allow Wilson Mile to run with the exact same bill. What's interesting about this is that shows that it's got some level of political push behind it and some level of political continuity behind it. So we'll be watching this bill very closely. I actually spoke to Brian May yesterday just to better understand his positioning on this. And we had a good dialogue on it. And I think part of it is these MPs really need to be educated as to just how potentially damaging these pieces of legislation could be, because they feel good to say, hey, I'm giving people an extra right to do something, but the consequences can be quite grave. So we'll talk about that case here in a second. The other piece of legislation, Bill C23, this is by an NDP Member of Parliament, Brian Massey. You can see he's from Windsor. You can see the Windsor skyline for those of you who've been to the Windsor area before. It's a bill that has also been drawn in the top 15 of the lottery draw. If this bill was on the number 305 on the lottery, we probably wouldn't be talking about it. But when it makes that top 20, it's really going to be front and centre. It's been introduced in the first reading. And Brian Massey has a long history on right to repair. This one is more aimed at the automotive sector. But clearly, as the bill goes through, it can be and will be a target for expansion of those advocates that want to see this in the farm equipment or heavy equipment sector, and maybe even beyond this. This bill is a little bit unique in that it focuses on the Competition Act, and giving the powers of the Competition Act to initiate an investigation, where right to repair is a detriment to competition. What's interesting about this is in having this reviewed by legal counsel, it's clear that these powers already exist in the Competition Act, but this would almost just highlight them or make them more of a centrepiece going forward. So I know Brian Weil is a good Member of Parliament. But one of the challenges behind this is when you put a piece of legislation like this forward, and it's going to get debated, amended, voted on, the possibility for it to become really detrimental to the AED members could be quite significant. One of the interesting things about the auto sector on this is the auto sector has what's called CASIS, which is a voluntary system to help facilitate some information, quite extensive information to the aftermarket in a way that respects the dealer-franchise relationship, but also helps ensure that consumers aren't left in a position where they can't do repairs. So he's targeting the auto industry, but clearly we can see from the chatter and discussion on this on social media that there's going to be a push to try to expand this beyond the auto sector. The next issue on a federal level I think is important for people to know about is that in the mandate letters from the Prime Minister, you can see the Prime Minister's letterhead there, the Prime Minister puts out instructions to his cabinet ministers. These used to be before 2015 private letters that were between the Prime Minister and their cabinet ministers. These are now made public, so we can see what exactly the marching orders are for individual cabinet ministers. And in this particular case, the Prime Minister has instructed the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry in the mandate letter to act on right to repair, and again to do it in the home appliance electronics sector, by requiring manufacturers to supply repair manuals, spare parts, and amending the Copyright Act to allow for the repair of digital devices and services. So now you don't just have these private members pushing forward a right to repair, you have a government-wide initiative that will come forward on right to repair. And I think once that process takes steam, the challenge of how far that could go and how far that could spread is quite significant. Again, I think if you look at what the U.S. government has done, that President Biden put a challenge before the Federal Trade Commission, and again Daniel's the expert on this, but part of that process is to highlight the problem and then that gives life to advocates on the opposite side of this who want access to that information to try to either amend initiatives in this front, or through those consultations on this, really try to drive solutions. And finally we have provincial action. We've had pots of provincial action in the past, in Ontario the legislature has put forward different private members initiatives on right to repair, but this is the first significant provincial government action, Bill 197 in Quebec, which amends the Consumer Protection Act and has wide-sweeping implications for right to repair policies. This law is getting a lot of attention, interestingly that some third-party groups such as environmental watchdogs have recently weighed in on saying hey we want to see this passed, we'll talk about the environmental angle here because we think it's actually the opposite of this, but where this becomes a problem if we get provincial initiatives and federal initiatives, sometimes in Canadian legislative history when you have that cross jurisdictional boundary, you'll have the federal government come in meet with the provinces and then put an entire framework in place, so you don't get one set of rules at the province and one set of rules at the federal, you get some harmonization. One of the examples of that was cost of credit harmonization and this falls kind of right in that same sweet spot, so it'll be interesting and we're engaged with Premier's offices to figure out, okay are those discussions going forward at the provincial level? I can report they're not on discussion of that now, but we can see that on the horizon as it goes forward. So what is AED's response? And I think part of this response is we have been fully engaged with elected officials making sure that they know that we oppose the application of this to the equipment industry. We've also been heavily engaged with the OEMs, we've been talking to members during the recent Orlando sessions with Canadian members, we talked directly about right to repair and what it means for the industry and making sure that we had a roundtable session where we sat down with members and asked them their perspectives and their viewpoints and what they could bring to the table and what they thought of our arguments. And it's clear that this is going to take up quite a bandwidth of AED's advocacy activities both in Canada and the United States and we'll be working those in tandem because there's definitely a relationship between the two. And so AED has highlighted the significant safety, environmental, intellectual and liability concerns that are part of this. If you grant unfettered access across the board to embedded code, all of those things are significant risks. And the entire structure of the intellectual property is structured on the manufacturer having that intellectual property, being able to share it with the dealership network to make sure you have environmental and safety concerns looked after, but also so that you protect that intellectual property and protect consumers from doing the wrong thing and causing problems that would then lead back to liability through the entire supply chain. So we're looking carefully at those issues as we go forward. So the current proposals in our view are a solution in search of a problem. One of the things that you have is you don't have widespread consumer revolt on this issue. When you do polling on it, consumers generally support the idea, but members of parliament offices are not diluted with thousands and thousands of complaints about Canadians not being able to repair their heavy equipment, nor are they hearing it from the vehicle industry or others. They are hearing it quite consistently from the technology point of view, the tablets, the cell phones, and they are hearing it with respect to washing machines. Those complaints are flooding into MPs offices, and we're worried we're going to get caught up in that as we go forward because as right to repair gains traction, we really need to make sure that our goal is to get off-road equipment exempted from anything that becomes law. We don't have to oppose the the imposition of rules on other sectors, but certainly we have to be engaged all the way through to make sure that we're not disadvantaged, that our members aren't disadvantaged as we go forward. So what I have here up on screen for you now is what I like to call the AED case. It's the AED cheat sheet for members of parliament. As we've met with members of parliament, we've provided them with our really targeted arguments to make our case to MPs in a way that's digestible and understandable. We certainly have reams of information and reports that are more detailed than this, but I want to walk you through the arguments that we've made so that you can be well-armed and understand them and ask questions on them as we go forward. So right to repair, right to modify, and I'll just read this out loud. The primary basis for applying right to repair policies to the equipment industry is based on a false narrative that consumers, including farmers, are unable to fix their machinery, and that's what I'm saying about that lack of really legitimate complaints in that space. There's not a groundswell to say they can't fix their machinery, and indeed there's a system in place through the dealer network to look after that. On the contrary, equipment manufacturers and distributors make available diagnostic tools, repair information, and parts. However, consumers do not have the ability to modify complex environmental and safety protection, and that is the crux of our argument as we go forward, and of course we expand on those in the environmental case. The equipment industry has invested significant time and resources to meet emission standards. This government, the federal government in Canada, holds the emission case as the most important element of their political mandate and also of the government's mandate is to take on the battle of climate change. So as a result of that, our industry's investment in time and resources to meet these emission standards should not be circumvented, and these specifications and application to off-road equipment have resulted in significant environmental improvements and reductions of emissions, and as a result, again, should not be overdone. So when you have right to repair, yeah, there's a potential out there. It threatens to undo these gains as individuals could circumvent these environmental protections in order to boost performance, and I think that's an understandable application. Farmers, equipment operators wanting to turn off these emission systems in order so that they can improve performance, move faster, all of these things, but these emission standards, environmental protections exist for reasons, and indeed this government has been one of the ones pushing those emissions reductions more than any other sector. So safety impact, again, this is worth walking through for you. Modern heavy equipment has numerous safety features to protect both equipment operators and the public. These aren't put on there for no good reason. They're well thought out and often mean that if you grant access to these features, they pose an undue risk to operators, bystanders who are in vicinity of it. So as we move towards more autonomous machinery, safety risks will increase if we give up these codes, and additionally, you really have to think about just the basic safety of the public and the operators as they go forward. One of the things we've talked a lot to this government about is the incredible role AED equipment played in rebuilding British Columbia after the disastrous floods, and I think there's a greater awareness of how heavy equipment is critical to Canadian infrastructure, so anything you do to disrupt that environmental safety supply chain would be potentially damaging. So ultimately, and this slide can be really broken down into the real reasons why the primary code and source codes shouldn't be overridden because of the emission sources, safety, this is not fixing equipment, this is modifying it. So we need to exempt off-road equipment from any right to repair mandate. So as they think about these other challenges, make sure you don't pull the heavy equipment sector into it. So let's talk about what AED has been up to on this front. We've been continuously meeting with members of Parliament and policy makers on this issue. It's been an ongoing engagement as this has begun to ramp up. All parties are supporting the concept of right to repair, but we're really educating them on the potential impacts of our sectors, and that includes meeting with the policy development teams within government, individual members of Parliament, and of course the leader of the opposition's office. We've also written letters to all candidates during the election period, get the politicians while they're listening the most, and after election, making sure we outlined our case to members of Parliament directly afterwards. So those meetings have taken place, the discussions with members of Parliament who are tabling this legislation, and also the house mechanism folks to make sure that these pieces of legislation don't expand beyond their original mandate, and of course the association has organized multiple tours across Canada with MPs so that they can see firsthand how heavy equipment industry works, how AED members are integrated into that, and get really firsthand experience, grassroots experience on where this sits. So that brings us about to 22 minutes of presentation, which I understand is the length of time the average person can pay attention to any one given issue, so I appreciate your time. We'll turn it open for questions, or if Daniel, you want to jump in with some American context here, I think that might be quite helpful. Yeah, so thanks to you, that was great. I just wanted to, I guess, correct or clarify one thing. You said they've had a lot of success in the United States. Well, I guess they've had success in kind of pushing it in a number of states. It thankfully has not passed any states, passed one state house at this point, and that was New York, the state Senate, but that ended up not getting passed. So right now we've been very successful in a broad coalition of dealer groups, OEMs, in pushing back against this legislation at the state level, and now we're battling it at the federal level as well. And then one thing I did want to point out, that aside from the liability issues, obviously the environmental safety concerns, I mean, one of the big impacts is particularly on our dealers and our manufacturers on their bottom line, which is on the cost of parts. So a lot of these provisions, at least in the United States, and likely will morph into something like this possibly in Canada if we don't stop it, would be that you would be required to offer parts at cost. And that obviously has a significant impact on how you run your business and really upends the entire distribution model in a lot of ways. One thing, Hugh, I did have a question for you. So as we're talking to our MPs and policymakers, one thing that there was pushback, I was in a meeting with Brian May that we set up for some of our members last year, and his response was, well, how dare you accuse farmers, Canadian farmers, of trying to circumvent emissions standards and safety. We're the greatest stewards of the environment in the world. This is insulting that you would even accuse a farmer or a consumer of heavy equipment of circumventing safety and environmental standards. So what would be the pushback on that? Well, there's a certain element of common sense that goes along with this. I mean, I appreciate Brian May as a Member of Parliament, and he's a strong advocate for his position, but I think it's pretty clear that anybody who's used any form of personal equipment recognizes that sometimes there's some annoyances that go along with the safety equipment, and there's no shortages of individuals who at least think about, maybe I'll tape down this extra pushdown on my weed whacker that's meant to protect me, because you're so handy to it. I mean, I've certainly seen it in lots of personal instances where you're a little bit surprised by those kind of things. So we're not trying to disparage the individual farmer for a starting point, but there's a history of people circumventing safety and environmental all across the world, and one of the things manufacturers have to be very concerned about, and dealers as well, is that these are well thought out, and we need to sometimes help people protect them from their instincts towards efficiency. It's not a disparagement of any individual farmers or even farmers collectively, but really to make them understand that there's a long, long history across all kinds of consumer products of people trying to find workarounds for these things. I also think that part of it has to be, while we've led with the environmental and safety initiatives, also I think we're going to see a greater debate in and around intellectual property side of the equation, and what's fair and what's right on that. I certainly haven't been through many issues with Industry Canada and Transport Canada on how intellectual property is shared and what level the state intervenes in terms of commercial relationships. I think Right to Repair has a real opportunity to upend what is fundamentally important for our economy to run, which is the protection of intellectual property information and making sure that that doesn't get shared in a way that's inappropriate. I think that argument is going to become more front and center. We've led with, I think, strong, easy to understand arguments, but I think we're going to have to emphasize that more. Just on the US, I appreciate that clarification because you're exactly correct. I think what I was more referring to, and again, it's a double-edged sword, if you look at states like Massachusetts, where they've brought in Right to Repair legislation in the vehicle market successfully as an initiative. That was really interesting. That was done through a referendum in which they got, I think you call it something else in the states other than referendum, it's a ballot initiative to get the public support behind whether they do something or not, a statewide ballot initiative. That's upended the vehicle industry. There are Subaru individuals who now can't get their car equipped properly with the right safety and also function in the highest way possible because the manufacturers cannot provide the right source code to meet the actual legislation. These things have unintended consequences. I think when I was referring to the states, I think they see these pop-up victories in different states and they see them as, okay, now we can move this here in Canada. Legislature sometimes get intoxicated by the fact that, well, they passed this in one jurisdiction, we should try it in another. I think the Massachusetts one is a great example of unintended consequences. When you start to mess with the free market and don't really think through the safety implications, the customer service components of it, and how highly technologically equipment can be these days, you start to get into trouble. Yeah, I'm glad you raised that. I think that's certainly, it's kind of like a be careful what you wish for sort of thing of the Massachusetts. We do have a few questions here and I'll kind of go through those, Mike, if that's okay with you. Where can we find a copy of the AD case document that you had shown? Mike Dexter will circulate that to everyone and we will have it linked on our website as well so everyone can view that. Second question is organized labor taking a stance on R2R in Canada. And I think this is partially, so in the United States, we've been somewhat successful in getting the operating engineer. So those working, using the equipment to weigh in against right to repair at a state level. So has there been, do you know where the organized labor, I guess, stands broadly on right to repair in Canada, Hugh? You know, it's interesting. I sit on a board with the federal minister of industry and Jerry Dias sits on that board as well, who's the head of Unifor, which is Canada's largest labor union involved in manufacturing. And I have not heard Jerry take a public stance. We'll look into that, you know, because that's an important angle to think about, particularly when you start to get bills coming from the NDP. It's a great question and one we'll look into. But from my personal interactions with them, when right to repair has been brought up in the context of, you know, several meetings, they have not weighed in on this. So I don't think it's a priority for them for sure. They are very concerned at the moment with, you know, vehicle electrification and border issues. But we'll look into that. I think it's an important element to raise. So I appreciate that question. Yeah. And we haven't, you know, in the US, at least as far as the operating engineers go, it certainly isn't their top priority, but we have in select states, particularly Northeastern states where there's a large union presence, been able to get them to weigh in and has been very helpful at times. Next question. I guess that might be for me more than anyone. Have any states in the US rejected the right to repair pressures, and if so, can we learn from them accordingly? Yeah. So like we said, there's only been that once. Massachusetts basically has a right to repair, but it's limited to passenger vehicles at this point. But what's really been successful in the states is really having the dealers be the face of this in meeting with their policymakers, as well as detailing what is available to consumers or to your customers right now. I think there's, again, a misconception, a false narrative that someone couldn't walk in and buy a part from you or someone, you know, you're not selling your diagnostic tools or you're not offering your manuals. But in reality, you generally you are. And so I think that's been helpful when you have a member of parliament or a policymaker out to show, to actually have them out to your facility and engage them. And it's also important that it's at the dealer level. I mean, OEMs do a great job, obviously, but OEMs are kind of, especially in this day and age, the big corporation and kind of, you know, have not exactly looked upon as favorably these days. So having dealers be the face of this effort, as well as really educating about what is available and then, of course, the implications of these, how it impacts your business, as well as how it would impact the environment, safety, the liability issues and the IP such situation has been, has really been what's helped keep this from passing in the United States. Yeah. And I think that's a great lead. And Daniel, you probably can't see it because one of the questions came in through the chat, but the chat questioner asked, could you please expand on the comments surrounding parts sold at cost and what circumstances would this translate to zero profit on parts of the distribution and both the OEM dealers? So I'll just take a first crack at that, that if you don't mind, I think that this really references, you know, my commentary that we're going to be forced to really delve into the intellectual property side of this, but also the relationship between the manufacturers and dealers and why that structure exists. Dealers make tremendous investments in terms of buildings, inventory, repair, service, all of those things, you know, making sure that their technicians are, you know, fully certified and, and, and, and in the best position to, to repair things. And you know, governments have to decide, are we going to interfere with that relationship and make others who may want to become involved in that equal to dealers? And you know, you know, that really starts to get into a world of, of, you know, I'll just say it, you know, high handed government interference in almost a socialist agenda. And I think it's, you know, it's not an accident that you see, you know, those, you know, on the, on the left of the political spectrum, try to push that along as something that is, that is needed for consumers when it comes so at expense of the dealer manufacturer relationship. And I think when you push that into parts, you know, that's really, you know, complete market interference, you know, to, to, to be ordered, you know, to try to be in some sort of position that people who are not part of that relationship and haven't invested in that business relationship should be somehow treated equally. And I think we're going to be forced into that debate in a, in a, in a, in a wider spectrum as, as groups that see this as a business opportunity to, to edge into the dealer factory relationship, you know, start to really push that agenda broadly, but Daniel, go ahead. Yeah, no, no. I mean, certainly I think on there's a mis, again, a misperception like there often is in these where this, the narrative sounds a lot better than what the reality actually is, but there's this perception that dealers make, or price gouging essentially, are making tons of money off parts, which we know based on our cost of doing business survey, which many of you participate in that that's just not true. Sure. It's profitable, but it's not nowhere near what you would consider price gouging. And in fact gross profits on part sales have barely increased since 2014. So it's, while it's a steady revenue source, it's certainly not a, it doesn't reach the level of gouging or anything like that. So I think that's one thing when we are again, talking to policymakers, it's important to let them know that, you know, that it's not like dealerships are making tons, you know, but you know, tons and tons of money off these things that it really is just a stable source of revenue. And then of course the job that helps you employ people and all that kind of stuff. So Mike, you have a comment or? Oh, I agree with you. And I, and one of the things is that it's, we move forward with this, is that it's very important for, as Daniel said before in the U.S., how were we able to attack this? As Daniel said, dealers went out there and talk to their members. This is exactly what we need to do in Canada. We need to educate, as you said, we need to educate our MPs and do that by meeting with them at your facility. Well, actually, why don't we turn, I know Craig, we're wrong with our royalty, AD royalty here with Craig Drury. He's asked to say a few words, our immediate past chairman, Mr. Drury. Yeah, thanks Daniel. And I just wanted to pick up on what Mike was saying there is, you know, this isn't a fight that we need to leave to Hugh and Kyle and the AD team. Like, this is our fight and we need to, you know, use the relationships that Kyle and Hugh have with our local MPs and get in front of them to what Mike said. We need to drag them in kicking and fighting and make sure they understand what they're actually asking. You know, one thought I had is that if we could find somebody in, what's his name that's doing it, Wilson Mayo, someone that's in his riding that could actually take him into their store so he can be educated on this, I think would be a good takeaway from this in BC. But I just can't stress enough how important it is to get a relationship with your local MP and make sure they understand what they're really voting for here. Bring a machine in, hook a computer up and show them that you can disengage the operator presence or emissions or whatever you want to do so that they can see exactly what's going on. I understand, Craig. You and I have certainly talked about that and again most recently with our Canadian Roundtable and still appreciate the comments, you know, coming from leadership because this is an initiative that's being pushed on a grassroots level and if we don't have a grassroots voice presenting on a local level, you know, it won't be a competitive playing field. I also think, you know, Craig, just to build on what you said, there is nothing like a field trip to get a Member of Parliament to understand, okay, this is how it works because oftentimes, you know, Members of Parliament, you know, come from backgrounds where they haven't spent a lot of time in repair shops. There's a couple of mechanics in Parliament at the moment but very few and I think there's a misperception in terms of how all of this technology works and how complicated it really is and how important it is to get it right and I think those examples of being able to physically show them here's the things that can be disengaged and here's the consequences behind that help people understand where really is that and again having that understanding that there's a dealer factory network that's built for a reason and particularly in Canada with the broad geography that we have if we don't have a strong network of AED members selling and servicing heavy equipment across the country and you start to interfere with that structure that's built well to serve consumers and to make sure that we have the highest technology, highest safety equipment out there possible, you put that whole system at risk and then there's not that's just going to be a patchwork of aftermarket which isn't going to serve anybody in terms of jobs, employment, the economy and I can see those arguments on the horizon and being able to make those at a local level I think is tremendously important. So thank you Craig. So I have one question for you Hugh. So in terms of timing where do you see is this going to move quickly? What's kind of the timeline we have here? I think we're in that you know this is going to be bubbling red hot in weeks not months. I think we're at the stage where the government has been tremendously distracted by other things, border crises, emergency acts, those sorts of things but as the pandemic ebbs here and some of those other elements go with it we're already seeing MPs asking questions, introducing and I showed some clips in the presentation on social media and doing press tours talking about this. So the time is now the water is about to boil and we need to make sure that we're out there and you know to AD's credit this is not something that we're coming to you know today in February for the first time in 2022. We've been on this issue you know for several years and preparing that marketplace but so of our opponents on this so we really need to up our game as we come through the spring and summer in terms of those MP contact meetings and I'm sure we're going to have some fly-in events as parliament returns to normal and starts sitting in person again and I think you look for Kyle and our team to really work with you and Daniel and the members Mike to get them here to Ottawa or more important to get them to meet with members in their constituency. Yeah and I would just add that you know Minister Champagne who's the Minister of Industry in his mandate letter like you said has has right to repair for home appliances obviously that's not going to affect heavy equipment but I think you know AD's job is always ensuring that heavy equipment's exempt. There's always a chance that these mandate items or these pieces of legislation can expand beyond what they currently are right. You look at Brian Massey's bill right now it's strictly on the automotive sector but there is a chance that it could grow to the heavy equipment sector. I would also look at the provincial level in Quebec Bill 197 which was first introduced in 2019 certainly starting to pick up steam now there is an election in Quebec in the fall of 2022 so that might be the saving grace of that legislation not getting passed but the fact that it's gaining so much steam at the federal level I think it's a you know Ontario has an election coming up in June I wouldn't be surprised if there's a right to repair bill table there in in the fall. It has popped up very in in a small portion in Ontario but but it hasn't necessarily getting the traction it has in other provinces. BC is another one where I wouldn't be surprised if it would come up soon soon as well so you know it's really cropping up at the federal level but I think where it will it will certainly have the most impact is at the provincial level and and I would I would look out for for a lot to happen soon. Thank you there's a question for you I don't know if you know the answer. Does Minister Qualtrop have an opinion on right to repair bills and actions? I have not seen her come out on this this directly but we can we can circle back with the member that asked that question. I was on a webinar with the minister not too long ago I know she's seized with the challenges of her her portfolio and workforce development but it's important that we get to cabinet ministers as well as as well as backbench members of parliament on this and you we certainly know that the you know our opponents on this who are you know pushing for you know basically the dismantling of the of the the current current structure through right to repair you know we'll be pulling out all strings talking to cabinet ministers as well so definitely on our target list. Great well um seeing how there's no I don't think I missed any questions um Mike I don't know well I'll just wrap up and then turn it over to Mike to do the close I think we intended to keep this at about 45 minutes so we're at 42 minutes so well done team uh lots of elements of discussion I would just encourage uh members to to read that uh handout look for more information in terms of toolkits that are going to come out uh for for you to discuss this with your member of parliament and remember that any action that you can take at the grassroots level is a major contributing fact factor just re-emphasize what Craig said that if you can get out there reach out to your member of parliament have them come to to your dealership you know that's an important step to be able to explain the issue in a key way and of course we'll be tracking it all Mike over to you to close us out awesome thanks thank you Daniel thank you and Kyle thank you and to everybody on the call what I will do this afternoon is uh you will get the presentations in the email and we'll have everything in there and also I'll encourage you when I send you the email is to set a meeting up with your MP or ask me and we'll set a meeting up with your MP as as as Mr. Drury said it's important this is one that we all need to get involved in with that thank you all very much like I have one like I have one comment if I just could just to plug on February 28th at 4 30 p.m. we are hosting a webinar with uh Congressman Brian Higgins who's co-chair of the Northern Border Caucus here in the United States for a discussion about the U.S.-Canadian relationship so um if you have any questions we sent out a registration information about that but uh Mike can recirculate that as well um be great to have a good showing um from our Canadian membership on that particular uh discussion correct Daniel thank you that will go out this afternoon as well I'll put that in there so you guys can log off a join in on that call uh again thank you all very much I appreciate it for taking this time I look forward to seeing you and hearing from you shortly with that I think Hugh has one more comment here is I just gotta say that Brian Higgins is a great get for for I mean he's a very influential uh legislator on both sides of the border and nobody has has logged more airtime in Canada talking about Canada-U.S. relations than Brian Higgins so that's a that's a don't miss session for members thank you Mike thanks thank you all appreciate it have a great day be safe thank you

right to repair

Canada

legislative agenda

heavy equipment industry

safety concerns

environmental concerns

intellectual concerns

liability concerns