Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Simcoe North, a person whom I have come to know. He is an hon. member, certainly, but I found his speech lacking because of the many examples he offered. If he were concerned about getting to the nub of the issue, he would look towards the testimony that we have had in committee when we had allegations floating around. When we get to the nub of it at committee, we discover that things that were painted a certain way were certainly not so. For example, I think of the allegations around the Trudeau Foundation and foreign interference. When we started having people come to committee and being put under question, we discovered that there was no foreign interference. There was no quid pro quo for donations. Then that leaves us with the issue that it is just a question perhaps of bad management, which I think is something that is well worth exploring. I guess the real point I am trying to tell the member is this: Is it not worth, on a serious allegation such as we are facing, to take the time, with cool heads, to investigate further to see where the problem was before we just lay out a number of unproven allegations, some of which I heard, disappointingly, in the hon. member's speech?

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Before I answer his fundamental question, I would first like to provide an update to all my colleagues in the House of Commons and to Canadians. As I am sure everyone is aware, we have reached a tentative agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC, for the four bargaining units in the core public administration. This is great news for employees and for Canadians. It was not easy. We negotiated, we compromised and we found creative solutions. After long days, nights and weekends of hard work, we reached fair and competitive agreements for employees, with wage increases of 11.5% over four years, consistent with the recommendations made by the Public Interest Commission. These agreements are also reasonable for taxpayers and provide an additional year of stability and certainty. The Government of Canada values the important role that public service employees play in providing services to Canadians. PSAC members play an essential role in this work, and these agreements will provide them with important benefits and improvements that recognize their vital contribution. Now I would like to address the issue of services raised by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. There are a couple of things I will do. First, I would like to directly answer why it took this long to have negotiations. I would like to inform the hon. member that the Government of Canada tabled its negotiations just over a year ago. Unfortunately, PSAC chose not to negotiate with us. It walked away from the table. We were always there and ready at the table to start the negotiations so we could have avoided what we experienced over the last two weeks, but it was not to be. It was not until after the publication of the public interest report, as well the public interest commission's report, and some other processes related to the strike mandate before the unions returned to the table. We then negotiated night and day with the bargaining units at the table and came up with a deal that is not only fair and reasonable for public service employees, but also competitive, fair and reasonable for Canadians. Therefore, I would be happy to talk to the member about the consequences of what has happened and the effects that this two-week strike has had on various services, but I see that I am running close to time, so I will wrap up here. I hope my colleague will allow me to continue providing him the response that he has sought.

Madam Speaker, the advice I would have is to start the negotiations as early as we can. There are times where it would be unreasonable to expect any future government to start negotiations years in advance of the ending of a contract because conditions will change over time. If we go back three years, I do not think people would have predicted that we would have seen interest rates rise to 5% or 6% as they have. At the time, we were staying at historically low rates for almost a decade, so it would be unreasonable to expect that. However, as soon as they can, say a year out, it makes a lot of sense for governments to do that. I would encourage all future governments to ensure they sit down and negotiate an offer in good faith, and I hope the bargaining units will do the same, because it takes two to tango.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I am very pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill S-6, an act respecting regulatory modernization. Regulations are the book of rules that govern how businesses operate and that protect consumers, the environment, our health and our safety. As we have seen, these rules can pile up and become obsolete over time. When that happens, innovation and growth are stifled, which weakens the economy and causes more problems for Canadians. Modernizing our regulatory system improves Canada's ability to attract investment in growth-oriented businesses. That is why this bill is so important. It would have an important impact on Canadian businesses and advance public service efficiencies. In a time of economic recovery, Bill S-6 would ensure that the legislative frameworks that support Canada's regulatory system evolve with the changing technologies and environment. The fact is that we have been working on the modernization of regulations for some time. The Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1 amended 12 regulatory instruments with the first annual regulatory modernization bill. It included making changes to digitalize paper-based processes, streamlining the review process for zero-emission vehicles, and enabling innovation by changing regulatory requirements to test new products. The fact is that regular and eminently sensible updates ensure greater competitiveness. At the same time, we must protect Canadians' health, safety and environment. An important way to ensure that we can modernize and streamline regulations while protecting Canadians and the environment is to put in place an in-depth and effective review process. To that end, this bill will serve as a recurring legislative mechanism. This means that the Government of Canada can ensure that the regulatory system remains pertinent, effective and up to date. It is designed to address the legislative challenges raised by businesses and citizens through consultations and targeted regulatory reviews. In fact, consultations with stakeholders in the business sector led to the inclusion of this recurring mechanism. The economic strategy tables and the Advisory Council on Economic Growth pointed out that creating a regular mechanism such as this is essential to improving Canada's regulatory system. I would also like to point out that the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness, made up of stakeholders from business and academia and consumers, has recommended continuing efforts to keep the administrative burden of regulation at a reasonable level and to ensure that regulations stand the test of time. At its core, Bill S-6 proposes to modify 28 different acts through 45 common-sense amendments to modernize our regulatory system. For example, the bill contains amendments to the Fisheries Act that would make it clear that fisheries officers have the authority for minor violations to reach an agreement with fishers instead of taking them to court, an authority that was unclear in the existing legislation. Not only would this reduce the number of lengthy and costly court processes, but it would also ensure small violations do not result in criminal records and the stigma and barriers that could come as a result. Importantly, this change has been supported by the fishing community and by indigenous peoples. Another example is the minor change proposed to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. In short, this amendment would allow the CFIA to provide services and allow businesses to interact with the agency electronically instead of through paper transactions. This will give businesses more flexibility in their interactions with the federal government, resulting in a reduced regulatory burden. There are also proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act that would allow us to adopt international transportation safety standards faster, in consultation with the businesses affected. As we have seen, even minor changes can often have a significant positive impact on various sectors of the economy, and I have covered only three of the 45 amendments included in this bill. In addition, all of the proposals are cost-neutral, with little or no associated risk. Bill S-6 helps ensure that our regulatory system stays up to date and sets up Canadians and businesses for success in the years ahead by amending laws that are too inflexible, too specific or simply outdated. This bill is an important reminder of the need for ongoing regulatory review and legislation that stands the test of time. I want to also assure all hon. members that the bill is not a one-off. It will be an annual undertaking. In fact, work on the next bill is already under way. The Canadian regulatory system plays a key role in helping companies succeed and in protecting Canadians and the environment. For our economy to keep growing, we need a more effective and streamlined regulatory system that keeps on delivering world-class protection for consumers, health, safety and the environment. This is exactly what Bill S‑6 does. It helps modernize the current rules to make things easier for companies, and it will continue to set up regulatory agencies, stakeholders and Canadians for success. This is something we can all get behind.

Madam Speaker, I know it sticks in the hon. member's craw that Canada is now making a transition to a clean, green economy, especially in key sectors, such as the automotive sector. Let me get back to Bill S-6. I can tell members why this process is so important. We are going to review all of the government regulations to ensure that they are still up to date. Any obsolete regulations that are no longer useful must be removed. We must be sure to remain competitive so that the Canadian economy performs and so that we can protect Canadians and especially the environment.

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Mirabel on this issue. The committee he is a member of may be one of the House of Commons' most important committees. I am not sure what I did in my life to deserve to be a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I wanted to be a member of that committee because at a joint committee of senators and members, parliamentarians have an opportunity to really get to the bottom of things and to require that the machinery of government change or get rid of things that have been dragging on for years. There are consequences to violating the requests of the committee. Bill S‑6 gives us the chance to modernize regulations, in a similar fashion to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I hope it will lighten that important committee's workload.

Madam Speaker, we are at the bargaining table with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I can say that our goal is to resume normal operations as soon as possible. The government is committed to negotiating an agreement that is reasonable for public servants and fair for Canadians. I can say that the negotiators are still talking. The government is at the table, and we are negotiating in good faith.

Madam Speaker, first of all, it is really important to state that both parties are at the negotiating table. The federal government is negotiating in good faith. I know that my receding hairline might give an indication that I am a little bit long in the tooth, but I have a bit of a memory and I do remember when those on the other side of the aisle were in government. What did they do every time workers tried to have a collective agreement? They legislated them back to work. We believe in having a negotiated settlement that is fair for workers and reasonable for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, as I have said many times, we are still at the bargaining table with the union. We are there to negotiate in good faith. I am confident that when the parties are there and decide to negotiate in good faith, we will come to a solution. There are certainly situations where we want to avoid doing what the Conservatives do: Whenever there is a problem, they always blame the public servants.

Mr. Speaker, I will not use any props as I ask my hon. colleague a question. I know that it is not all fun and games here in the House, but things do get done. One of the things that gets me down is when members exaggerate. The government announced $31.2 billion as part of the national housing strategy. That was in the previous budgets. This funding will be available until 2028. There is a measure in the strategy to assist people in urgent need of housing, such as victims of violence. Instead of repeating misinformation, could this well-known member from Quebec occasionally admit that progress is being made? It is not always easy, but progress is being made. A lot of progress was made with the national housing strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, or ETHI, and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or PROC, are currently studying the issue of foreign election interference. It would be appropriate to note the testimony from the national security and intelligence adviser, or NSIA, during her appearance on March 1, 2023, at PROC and at the Standing Committee on National Defence, or NDDN, on December 8, 2022, during which the NSIA said, “We have not seen money going to 11 candidates”. As previously announced, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, will complete a review to assess the state of foreign interference in federal electoral processes. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, will review how Canada’s national security agencies handled the threat of foreign interference during the 43rd and 44th federal general elections. Additionally, an independent special rapporteur has been mandated to identify any outstanding issues requiring attention, recommend any additional mechanisms or transparent processes and identify innovative approaches and improvements in the way public agencies work together to combat foreign interference in our electoral processes.

Mr. Speaker, our public servants and the Public Service Alliance of Canada provide valuable services that are important to Canadians. The government certainly values their work. We are committed to reaching an agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada that is fair to government employees and also reasonable for Canadians. There is a competitive deal on the table, and I am really proud to say that both parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith. Canadians expect both parties to reach an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of your admonition and trying to encourage the member not to do indirectly what he cannot do directly, it is almost symbolic of how the Conservatives treated the public service when they were in government. Public servants remember very well how the Conservatives had abrogated their rights and provided terrible working conditions, and they got no value for it. The Liberal government believes in public servants. We believe in good-faith negotiations. We are there. We are providing important services to Canadians, as Canadians saw through the pandemic and as they saw through many things, and providing things that would help us deal with the current inflation. This is good news for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of what happened at the committee today, committees, as members know, are masters of their own destiny. The committee chose not to go forward and support what the Conservatives had brought forward. It was unanimous, with the exception of the Conservatives, to not go forward with that, because we have important things to discuss, not to engage in these drive-by smears that the Conservatives like to engage in.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that public servants do important work for Canadians, and we agree that they have the right to strike if they are in a legal position to do so. What is important is to have the opportunity to negotiate in good faith. That is what we have been doing. In contrast, when the Conservatives were in power, they denied public servants the right to strike and forced them to go back to work.

Mr. Speaker, while the information requested is not centrally tracked by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, or TBS, as per the directive on telework, which is at https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32636, employees who wish to participate in a formal telework arrangement, or who are already doing so, are responsible for assuming all utility costs related to maintaining their telework location.

Madam Speaker, it is very important to remember that the expenses related to this trip by the Governor General were similar to other trips made by previous governors general. We must always recognize that when the Governor General represents our country, she brings a delegation to represent the best of Canada on many issues. We are aware of this, as is the Governor General herself. She will continue to monitor her spending.

Mr. Speaker, those are the same old talking points from the Conservative Party and they happen to be the same talking points of big tech. Why do the Conservatives not finally stand up to the big guys and big tech in the country and try to do what we are doing, which is making sure that big tech is paying its fair share to Canadian artists and Canadian producers, to our local media? Instead of standing up for Canadians, those folks are standing up for the Googles, etc. I ask them to come on to the right side, and please support Canadians and people who produce this content.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that right now the tech giants are not paying their fair share. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians agree that they should be doing so. This is the reason why. This is why we are making sure that we have Bill C-11 to deal with this job. We know that the web giants must do more, more for our culture, more for our local media, more to protect our children. That is exactly what we are doing. Why are the Conservatives against that?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to questions (a), (b), (c) and (e), the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, or TBS, collects data for each fiscal year from each institution subject to the acts on the number of requests received, closed, outstanding, carried over, abandoned and responded to according to the legislative timeline of 30 days and extensions taken, broken down by length of time taken: 30 days or less, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days, 121 to 180 days, 181 to 365 days or more than 365 days. It collects data on the amount of time required to close requests: 0 to 30 days, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days or 121 days or more. It also collects data on the number of requests that were closed beyond legislated timelines where an extension or no extension was taken. TBS publishes a summary of this information annually in the access to information and privacy statistical report, as well as datasets that contain all the statistical data reported by all institutions, broken down by institution, at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/statistics-atip.html. The information requested in parts (a), (b), (c) and (e) can be found, calculated and compared from year to year based on the published datasets. Institutions also individually report this information to Parliament in their annual reports on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, which institutions table in Parliament and publish online each fall. The latest available data is for fiscal year 2021-22, from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. Data for fiscal year 2022-23 is expected to be collected by the end of September 2023 and published by December 31, 2023. With regard to question (e), the dataset for the supplemental statistics for the 2021-22 fiscal year is also included at the link provided above, which includes information regarding requests that are still open as of March 31, 2022, divided by the year they were received. Therefore, all requests received in fiscal year 2015-16 and before under the column “Open Requests Within Legislated Timelines” are guaranteed to have been issued an extension of longer than 5 years. TBS proactively makes the information sought in the above question publicly available every year towards the end of the calendar year. With regard to question (d), TBS provides policies and directives as guidance to all institutions on all aspects of access to information and privacy. However, access to information and privacy, or ATIP, offices are responsible for ensuring that when processing requests, every possible effort is made to ensure that the requester really wants to abandon their request before closing it. The definition provided to institutions for an abandoned request is as follows. A request is considered abandoned when the requester formally withdraws it, the required fees are not received within the timeline specified by the institution in a notice or the requester does not respond to a notice indicating that the request will be closed if they do not provide clarification within the specified timeline. In order for a request to be processed, the requester must submit a request for access to a record “in writing to the government institution that has control of the record and shall provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution to identify the record with a reasonable effort”, as prescribed by section 6 of the Access to Information Act, accompanied by an application fee of five dollars, as prescribed by paragraph 11(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act and paragraph 7(1)(a) of the access to information regulations. Should these conditions not be met, institutions write to the requester seeking either the additional information or the application fee, setting a deadline for these to be provided. If the requester does not provide the missing information or fee in the prescribed time, the request is abandoned.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question. As members know, in 2018, the Canadian government launched a contest to put a woman on Canadian currency for the first time in our history. I am very proud that Viola Desmond was chosen and is now featured on the $10 bill. The government is currently considering options to replace the image on the $5 bill. We are always looking to revitalize our Canadian institutions.

Mr. Speaker, a breakdown of expenses for ministers’ offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, is published each year in the Public Accounts of Canada at the following links. For 2019-20, go to https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/public_accounts_can/html/2020/recgen/cpc-pac/2020/vol3/s10/dcm-emo-eng.html; for 2020-21, go to https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2021/vol3/s10/dcm-emo-eng.html; and for 2021-22, go to https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/2022/vol3/s10/dcm-emo-eng.html.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s remote work policy, as it relates to the data requested, the information is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. It should be noted that the federal public service is adopting a common hybrid work model that will see employees work on site at least two to three days each week, or 40% to 60% of their regular schedule. This new model will apply to all of the core public administration, and it is strongly recommended that separate agencies adopt a similar strategy. While many public servants are already working on site at least two to three days a week, this new approach will represent a change for others. To allow departments and employees to smoothly transition to a common hybrid model, a phased introduction will begin on January 16, 2023, with full implementation by March 31, 2023. Deputy heads assume responsibility for implementing verification regimes and maintaining human resources data for their department or agency.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my opposition colleague for finally recognizing that there are at least some problems with the environment and the fact there is a price on pollution. He talked about the price that businesses have to pay. Does he really believe that pollution should be free or does he believe that we should put a price on pollution? Should people be able to pollute without consequence or should we instead tell them that the more they pollute, the more they must pay?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg South for his excellent speech today and for his answers to the questions, because he really hit the nail on the head. This opposition motion makes a brief reference to pollution pricing. Pollution pricing is a good thing, because pollution has a price. It is not free to pollute. My hon. colleague from Winnipeg South mentioned that in his province, floods that should only happen once every 100 years have occurred twice. It has happened twice. In my own riding, the Ottawa River burst its banks and caused flooding in 2017 and 2019. Statistically speaking, such floods should happen once a century, but they happened twice in three years. The climate crisis is here, and we need to get rid of practices that are not working anymore. The days when individuals, businesses, organizations and governments could pollute with impunity have passed. That is why I am very proud to say that we are going to be putting a price on pollution. I am a firm believer in capitalism. I think it is good for people to earn money. We applaud all those who want to make money by producing a good or providing a service. If they pollute while doing so, however, they must pay. I have confidence in the wisdom and ingenuity of Canadians, and certainly in our entrepreneurs, who will find ways to produce goods while reducing their carbon emissions. That means they will pay less, their product will be more efficient and cheaper, and people will buy it because it works. That is the idea behind pollution pricing. However, the motion before us today attempts to link the inflation we are experiencing today, the increase in prices, with pollution pricing. There is no link. When my colleague from Whitby was asking a question, he referred to a witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, on which my colleague sits. This witness is famous in Quebec and knows agriculture like the back of his hand. He was asked if the carbon tax was contributing to inflation and driving grocery prices up, and he said that it was not. What is causing inflation is the global context. There are several factors. First of all, there was the pandemic. All the companies suddenly had to shut down to make sure that people were safe and that the COVID-19 virus did not spread. Eventually, thanks to the innovations that led to the development of vaccines, the economy started to reopen, following the advice of public health authorities. All of a sudden, there were a lot of people all wanting to buy things at the same time. They wanted their freedom back. One or two people would have been okay, but when the whole world wants to buy things, it creates significant demand. Problems arose with supply chains around the world, especially in China because of its zero-COVID policy. That policy led to plant closures and disrupted supply chains worldwide. As if that were not enough, there is also Vladimir Putin's abhorrent war on Ukraine. It has hampered the flow of goods, creating product shortages and doubling price increases. These are global trends that are happening, so what do we do? Canadians are facing price increases, but, unlike the official opposition, our government has an answer. Our answer is to help the most vulnerable Canadians. We are doing that in several different ways. Let me explain. The first thing we want to do is make life more affordable for Canadians. With Bill C-30, we doubled the goods and services tax credit for a period of six months. The GST credit, which is in place to help the most vulnerable Canadians, is a tax-free payment to low- and modest-income individuals and families. Regardless of the circumstances, these people need a hand, especially these days. Our measure will put $2.5 billion in the pockets of around 11 million Canadians, and these individuals and families will be very happy to have this money for the next six months. With Bill C-31, we created the Canada dental benefit. Once again, this benefit will put about $1,300 in Canadians' pockets to ensure that kids 12 and under have access to dental care. There is something else, too. We also paid $500 to 1.8 million low-income Canadian renters who are struggling to pay the rent. This is another targeted, non-inflationary support measure that will make a big difference for those in need. Earlier this year, we increased old age security by 10% for people aged 75 and over. I can also talk about the Canada workers benefit, which is another way we are providing targeted assistance to support Canadians in need. This benefit is a refundable tax credit offered to Canadians and families who are working but earning a low or modest income. All of these targeted and reasonable measures will help Canadians get through this global crisis. We can do all this while also fighting the climate crisis. That is what we have done in Canada. This will create a more sustainable economy, a healthier environment, and social cohesion. As parliamentarians, what are we good for if not bringing everyone together?

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but my colleague should not quote out of context. Quoting out of context is just a pretext for saying things that are not true. What he said is true in theory, but the effect is minimal, and that is what matters. The real causes of inflation are the broken supply chains, which take time to fix; China's zero-COVID policy, which has disrupted all the supply chains; and Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine, which has also thrown supply chains around the world into chaos.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am not completely familiar with that private member's bill. Nevertheless, I know that the government is always there to support our farmers. We will support them by fighting against climate change. We are well aware that the climate crisis is something that we have to deal with today, tomorrow and in the coming years. Farmers know in their gut that climate change is coming. We have to work on that, and that is why we always need to put a price on pollution and implement a number of policies that will help create a greener, more sustainable Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to give a brief response. That is a great question from my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The reason Canada has fallen behind is that, for too long, we felt the effects of the Harper government's non-plan for the environment. Now we have a realistic plan in place, one that is recognized throughout the world and is one of the best plans because it is detailed. It includes very specific and very strong targets, as well as initiatives that, finally, are rigorous. That is why I am very optimistic about the future.

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister’s Office was first made aware by the minister’s office of a disturbing comment by an individual, it was agreed that the matter was serious and the department’s officials needed to get to the bottom of it. Funding was removed. As the minister has said, the process to review and remove the funding took too long, and it never should have been granted in the first place. The department has since moved to improve the vetting process, adding conditions to funding agreements to allow faster action in any similar situations and providing ant-Semitism awareness training to program officers to ensure this never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is upon us, a time for celebration and good cheer. However, as 2022 comes to an end, let us be frank: We are all on edge. It is not hard to figure out why, with isolation due to working from home and an unsettling vulnerability to a virus we cannot see, yet whose harmful and sometimes fatal effects are cruelly felt. If we add in social media algorithms that distort any sense of balance, the ominous science of climate change and the wars and conflicts around the world, people are right to feel edgy, anxious, vulnerable and alone. I do too. What are we to do? I am choosing to channel those feelings into fighting for a better future. We must not give extremism, violence or hate any room to grow. We must join with our neighbours in making positive changes. Most importantly, we must be kind to each other and to ourselves. We are strongest together.

Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House, and I dare say most parliamentarians, understand how tough these times are for Canadians. That is the reason why most parliamentarians have supported our great government programs, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit and the Canada workers benefit. They are there to help Canadians in these tough times. Unfortunately, the official opposition has chosen to vote, at every opportunity, against these important programs that come to the aid of Canadians.

Madam Speaker, for years, our government has been concerned about the plight of Canadians, workers and families. That is why we created the Canada child benefit. That is why we have the Canada workers benefit, which will really help those who are working hard and just need a bit of a hand up. One thing is certain. In Canada, we now have a program to help people with child care, and the Conservatives voted against it. We cut costs in half—

Madam Speaker, we said not only that we were back but that we were going to have Canadians' backs. In seven years of this government, we have introduced programs that have made a huge difference to Canadians, such as the Canada child benefit, which has been able to cut down child poverty in this country. More than 425,000 children today are not in the situation of poverty. We can talk about the Canada workers benefit or the Canada dental benefit. With those things, we really have Canadians' backs. Do members know who do not have Canadians' backs? It is the official opposition, which voted against each one of these great programs for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows. Regarding part (a) of the question, in general, orders in council, or OIC, come into force on the day they are made by the Governor General, unless an order contains a specific effective date. In the case of P.C. 2020-903, the OIC fixed the date of registration as the effective date for section 292 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1. The order was approved by the Governor in Council on November 20, 2020, and then registered on December 9, 2020, making December 9, 2020, the effective date. In response to part (b) of the question, orders in council are approved via decisions made by the Governor in Council, not by members of the Office of the Prime Minister. The “Governor in Council” means the Governor General acting on the advice of members of the King’s Privy Council for Canada, i.e., cabinet ministers. All Governor in Council approvals require a minimum quorum of four King’s Privy Council members, who advise that the Governor General approves a government proposal by signing the related order in council. Order in Council P.C. 2020-903 was signed by the Governor General on November 20, 2020, and came into effect on December 9, 2020, the date on which it was registered. In response to part (c) of the question, with few exceptions, OICs are made available to the public. To facilitate access by Canadians, they are posted on the PCO-OIC website at https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/orders-in-council.html within three working days after approval by the Governor General. The Order in Council P.C. 2020-903 was made on Friday, November 20, 2020, and posted on the PCO-OIC website on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, at https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=40012&lang=en. In accordance with the subsection 11(1) of the Statutory Instrument Act, it was subsequently published in the Canada Gazette on December 9, 2020, the day the order was registered and came into force: https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-12-09/html/si-tr73-eng.html. Also on December 9, 2020, the record for Order in Council P.C. 2020-903 was updated on the PCO-OIC website to reflect the fact that the order in council was registered and therefore in effect. Please note that the orders in council division of the PCO is only able to comment on changes to the PCO’s website.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, I was working as an assistant professor, which is how I met Giscard Allen Alexandre. He was one of my most brilliant students. Thirteen years later, during my first election campaign, my party sent its best field organizer to help us. It was Allen Alexandre. The student became the teacher. He has been one of my best friends ever since. In his career, Allen has served ministers and the Prime Minister. Recently, he made the leap to the private sector. In his free time, he continues to pursue his passion, working for the public good. His work promotes Canada's Black communities, especially in Montreal, his hometown, and fosters their prosperity. For the past year, he has been fighting cancer and he will soon undergo major surgery. Knowing him, he will come out of this stronger. I invite all members to keep him in their thoughts, as I do, so that Allen can get through this difficult period and continue to make our society better.

Madam Speaker, international students provide significant contributions to Canada. We heard loud and clear their strong desire to continue staying here in the country and to work here. We have launched extensions of expired and nearly expired post-graduation work permits, which will benefit nearly 100,000 people. We have also lifted the 20-hour-work-week rule so that the almost 500,000 international students already here in Canada can continue to work while doing their studies. We are making sure that we are carving out a place for international students to better integrate into Canada.

Mr. Speaker, deputy heads each have the authority to determine how their employees will work, and decisions regarding hybrid work arrangements are being made in each individual department and agency. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. TBS concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information. Across government, organizations are now implementing their plans for a hybrid workforce, which will see most employees scheduled to work both on site and off site. TBS continues to support deputy heads in their transition to hybrid work models by providing guidance and best practices to promote a coherent approach while respecting the different operational realities of federal organizations. To further support the implementation of hybrid work, “Guidance on optimizing a hybrid workforce: Spotlight on telework”, available at https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/staffing/guidance-optimizing-hybrid-workforce-spotlight-telework.html, has been prepared as a tool for departments. This guidance contains overarching principles, steps to follow and key considerations for organizations, managers and employees when implementing a hybrid approach to work.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his thoughts on the economic statement. I obviously disagree with his conclusions. I do not even agree with his analysis. The fall economic statement offers a good example of a government that is ready to help Canadian workers in need, to help Canadian families and vulnerable individuals, including Quebec families and vulnerable Quebeckers. Is my hon. colleague against doubling the GST credit for Quebeckers? He spoke about the fact that the student loan program does not apply to Quebec. I would like to know whether my colleague is prepared to encourage the Government of Quebec to follow the federal government's lead and eliminate interest on student loans. In fact, I insist that he do so. Does my colleague agree that the Canadian government provided a lot of funding for the Quebec system?

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg for his speech. I would also like to thank him for telling Canadians what parts of the fall economic statement resonate with him. That is different. It is important that all parties have the chance to explain to what extent they agree and whether there is any common ground between their party and mine. I would like to ask my colleague a very short and straightforward question. Does he think that the Minister of Finance's economic statement is sufficient for him to vote in favour of it?