Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, every time I listen to my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I learn a lot. I would like to thank her for her excellent speech and her analysis of the fall economic statement. The member mentioned that inflation was not typical this time. The Minister of Finance and her department also recognized that fact. I listen to my colleague quite often, and I have a very honest question for her. We know that even if we stop all economic activity, there is a time lag between our activities and the greenhouse gas emissions. That means there will be some modifications and changes in our climate regardless of what we do now. Is my colleague also telling us that she believes that there will always be inflationary pressure from now on because of climate change and that it will persist until we resolve the climate crisis?

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C‑290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. First, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel for introducing Bill C‑290, which is very well written. This is very useful and important work. I think everyone will agree that public servants who disclose serious wrongdoing must be protected. The question is not if we can strengthen those provisions, but how. Bill C-290 offers some potential steps forward, but it also poses some important legal and operational challenges. Today I am going to speak about what has been done to better protect whistle-blowers, the upcoming comprehensive review of the act and what needs to be fixed in Bill C-290 to help it create the positive change I know my hon. colleague certainly intends. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act promotes a work culture based on ethics and the integrity of the federal public service. Canada's whistle-blowing legislation is one of the various recourse mechanisms available to public servants when it comes to harassment, discrimination, labour grievances and privacy complaints. The government has made meaningful improvements to the system. We have implemented greater guidance for the internal disclosure process. We have increased the number of awareness activities and training sessions for public servants, supervisors and managers. We have also improved reporting on the internal disclosure process and founded wrongdoing. The government has also established a central website as part of the government portal. It will allow Canadians to access information about founded wrongdoing within federal institutions. In his mandate letter to the President of the Treasury Board, the Prime Minister directed her to build on the progress that has been made and to “continue to take action to improve government whistleblower protections and supports”. In keeping with this mandate, we will soon be conducting a comprehensive review of the act, which will include recommendations for possible amendments. The review will be conducted by a working group of academics, experts and union officials. Their work will take into account international research and the Canadian experience, the report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, as well as the debate and testimony on Bill C‑290. Our intent is to ensure that the law effectively protects and empowers public servants to shine a light on wrongdoing and to help strengthen Canadians' confidence in the integrity of our public institutions. This is what makes the bill before us so important. As it currently stands, Bill C‑290 contains some positive measures. It would extend protection to cover more public servants involved in reporting wrongdoing. It would extend the period during which a reprisal complaint may be filed from 60 days to one year. It would increase the applications respecting offences under various sections of the act. It would enable the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to disclose additional information in specific circumstances. It would also require a review of the act every five years. These are valuable and important proposals. The hon. member who introduced this bill is to be commended for the work he did in preparing this bill. That said, Bill C‑290 also raises issues that have to be looked at in committee to make sure there will not be negative legal and operational repercussions. It is important to note that the purpose of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is to address serious ethical breaches that cannot be dealt with using ordinary recourse mechanisms. It is not designed to deal with all ethical breaches or to replace existing recourse mechanisms meant for issues such as harassment, discrimination, workplace grievances and privacy complaints. These other recourse mechanisms include those set out in the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the code of conduct for procurement. I would also like to point out that the provisions of Bill C‑290 will result in a significant amount of overlap and duplication when it comes to these processes. Consider, for example, the bill's proposal to remove the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's power to refuse to deal with a complaint regarding reprisals that may be or have been dealt with under another act of Parliament. This change could lead to the use of multiple processes for the same issues by various administrative bodies with different mandates and objectives. Such overlap and duplication could result in wasted resources. It could lead to inconsistent determinations, differing remedies and duplicating settlements. I doubt that the hon. member had these consequences in mind. Another example is the proposal in Bill C-290 to include abuse of authority in the definition of wrongdoing. This could lead to overlap with staffing complaints on the same allegations under the Public Service Employment Act. Once again, this could result in the potential for parallel proceedings and multiple decisions on the same matters that could contradict each other. We need to avoid introducing unnecessary duplication and confusion into the current system. We must be careful not to undermine the value of grievances, which are an important tool for unions in the public sector. Other provisions will change the degree of severity of wrongdoing covered under the act, opening up the process to the most trivial of misdemeanours, which will clog the system and reduce its effectiveness. Bill C-290 also requires executives to provide support to a public servant involved in a disclosure, which conflicts with the principle of confidentiality. By including contractors in the provisions, Bill C‑290 could not only result in problematic employment relationships, but it could also encroach on provincial jurisdiction. I have no doubt that that was in no way the Bloc Québécois member's intention. This bill also removes the discretion of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal to decide whether to add the person alleged to have taken a reprisal as a party. This could in fact expose whistle-blowers in cases where the person alleged to have taken a reprisal does not know who the complainant is. My colleague has introduced a very important bill. Parliament needs to consider whether the operational concerns I have outlined today can be addressed in committee or whether it would be better to wait until the review leads to more complex reforms. In closing, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Mirabel for his work on Bill C‑290, and I look forward to the next steps in the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of Centraide Outaouais, an essential organization in our wonderful region. The past few years have not been easy, but Centraide Outaouais continued to set ambitious goals and make local residents' lives better. This year, its goal is to raise $4 million to fund 88 organizations, including Aylmer Meals on Wheels, which delivers hot meals to seniors who are sick or unable to put food on the table. Fighting poverty is everyone's responsibility, and Centraide Outaouais's initiative shows just how tightly knit the Outaouais community is. The organization's work proves that there are solutions to the problems the pandemic exposed. I encourage everyone listening to be generous. I would like to wish Centraide Outaouais all the best in its campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I certainly do not agree with her conclusion that our reasons for creating this bill were unethical. I think it is very important that we help people. I am sure that my hon. colleague will agree with me that it is important to help Canadian and Quebec families who are in an unenviable situation, who are less well off and whose children need dental care. I imagine we can at least agree on the importance of ensuring that these individuals can provide dental care for their children under the age of 12.

Madam Speaker, what is not acceptable is the Bloc Québécois's schizophrenia with regard to this initiative. First, the Bloc tells us that it is very important to provide dental care and that it is a very praiseworthy objective. Then they tell us that we are moving too quickly. These statements do not jive. We agree with the Bloc Québécois that it is very important to provide dental care to those who need it and we are taking action. I would ask my colleague to be more coherent on this issue, if possible. First, the Bloc wants us to take action, but then they do not want us to take action. How is that possible?

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Montreal for his speech and for starting this debate. I would like to ask him a question. I sincerely believe that simply holding this debate today will not only have a beneficial effect on Canadian families facing this increase in grocery prices, but will also send to the companies a message that we are watching them. Parliament is aware of the situation, and members are listening to their constituents. Does my colleague agree with me that this is an important debate to hold, in order to show everyone that Parliament is taking care of this issue?

Mr. Speaker, through the Greening Government Strategy, the Government of Canada has committed to make its conventional light-duty fleet greener and to transition to 100% zero emission vehicles, ZEVs, by 2030. ZEVs are vehicles that can operate on renewable energy without producing tailpipe emissions, such as battery-electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. On this pathway, the government has committed that at least 75% of its new purchases will be hybrid electric vehicles, known as HEVs, or ZEVs where suitable options are available and after considering operational feasibility. The government of Canada has made progress on these commitments. In 2021-22, departments ordered more than 1,000 additional green vehicles, including approximately 280 ZEVs and 730 HEVs, in fleet segments and where suitable options were available, such as sedans and small sport utility vehicles. As of March 31, 2021, the conventional light-duty fleet was composed of approximately 17,800 vehicles, including 450 ZEVs, making up 2.5%, and 1,100 HEVs, making up 6.1%. The rate of ZEV adoption has been constrained by market availability of a supply of suitable vehicles that meet operational requirements. Limited ZEV options currently exist for the larger vehicle types, such as the vans and pickup trucks that make up the majority of the light-duty fleet, and supplies are limited due to ongoing global supply chain issues. ZEV purchases will increase rapidly as more suitable options become available in the market over the next one to three years.

Mr. Speaker, each fiscal year, Treasury Board Secretariat, TBS, collects data on the number of requests received, completed, closed and responded to according to legislative timelines, 30 days, extensions taken, and exemptions and exclusions invoked. In response to (a), TBS collects data on the volume of requests closed during the reporting period, including information on the disposition of each request, including disclosed in part, all exempted and all excluded. In response to (b), TBS also collects data on the number of requests to which particular exemptions were applied. 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 can be calculated based on the published datasets. The “Access to Information and Privacy Statistical Report for the 2021 to 2022 Fiscal Year” will be published by December 31, 2022. All data presented in the access to information and privacy statistical report, as well as the statistical data that is available in an open format, is based on fiscal years. As such, data since 2019 would include the 2018-19 fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council advises the Prime Minister and elected government officials from an objective, non-partisan, public policy perspective. In this capacity, she discusses a wide range of issues with the Prime Minister, his office, and other ministers on a regular basis. Further information on the clerk’s role and any announcements can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council.html.

Mr. Speaker, while the Government of Canada does not track single-use plastic purchases, it is reducing plastic waste by reducing the unnecessary use of single-use plastics, including straws, utensils, bags, and bottles in government operations. They are, however, sometimes necessary for accessibility, health, safety or security reasons. The government is also committed to the reuse and recycling of plastic in its operations, buying more products made from recycled plastics, and reducing packaging waste by prioritizing reusable or recyclable packaging. The government will track and report its waste diversion starting in fiscal year 2022-23, including progress towards diverting at least 75% by weight of plastic waste from landfills by 2030.

Mr. Speaker, the agreement serves to ensure Parliament continues to function in the interest of Canadians. As part of the supply and confidence agreement announced on March 22, 2022, both parties have agreed to take part in monthly stock-take meetings by an oversight group. The oversight group consists of a small group of staff and politicians. This group discusses overall progress on key commitments and upcoming issues. The commitments under the agreement are publicly available at https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2022/03/22/delivering-canadians-now.

Madam Speaker, I will just ask a very quick question, or a series of quick questions. Can the hon. House leader tell us this: Is the pandemic over? Does the hon. member have the ability to determine whether the pandemic rates are going to go up or go down? Is this really just an insurance policy to make sure that the House has the flexibility to ensure that all members of Parliament can continue representing their constituents in this place?

Mr. Speaker, the government is currently studying the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in its recent report tabled in the House of Commons, “Collection and Use of Mobility Data by the Government of Canada and Related Issues”. The government will table a response, as requested by the committee, within the timelines required by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is important to note that in addition to the obligations in the Privacy Act, TBS’s policy on privacy protection and its underlying instruments, such as the directive on privacy practices, currently include strong requirements for institutions relating to the collection, notification, use, and disclosure of personal information as defined in section 3 of the act.

Mr. Speaker, while the Government of Canada does not track single-use plastic purchases, it is reducing plastic waste by reducing the unnecessary use of single-use plastics, including straws, utensils, bags and bottles in government operations. They are, however, sometimes necessary for accessibility, health, safety or security reasons. The government is also committed to the reuse and recycling of plastic in its operations, buying more products made from recycled plastics and reducing packaging waste by prioritizing reusable or recyclable packaging. The government will track and report its waste diversion starting in fiscal year 2022-23, including progress towards diverting at least 75% by weight of plastic waste from landfills by 2030.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I agree that the fight against climate change is very important. It is the greatest existential challenge of our generation. I hope that she will also agree that everyone needs to work together to fight climate change, and that doing so takes social cohesion. It is very important, especially for minority groups, such as racialized people, that a bill like this one is passed. Canadians of all backgrounds will then have confidence that, if they appear before a judge or a court, they will be respected and judged on the merits of the case. They will not be concerned that a judge may have an unwarranted bias that may undermine justice. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. During question period, I and a number of members on this side of the House heard the member for Kildonan—St. Paul make an intemperate if not incendiary remark in response to an answer the Prime Minister was making with regard to the over-incarceration of indigenous peoples and Black Canadians. I am confident that this member will not want those remarks to stand in the Hansard. I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, offer her the opportunity to withdraw those remarks or to significantly clarify them to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to repeat those comments because they were so incendiary and intemperate. If I may, I might ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review Hansard and to review the comments that I am certain our reporters heard. To answer the member's question, it was not a question that she posed to the Prime Minister. Rather, it was a statement that she made while the Prime Minister was answering.

Madam Speaker, we are fortunate in Canada to have a world-class public service. Whether on the front lines of our communities, from a home office, from a laboratory or in many other workplaces, federal public servants across the country continue to provide Canadians with the critical services they rely on and have not wavered since the start of the pandemic. Indeed, the federal public service is an incredibly diverse workplace. As the employer of the federal public service, the government is responsible for creating safe working conditions for public servants no matter where they work. An employer has an obligation to protect its employees. That is why, as the country's largest employer, we led by example to better protect the health and safety of public servants during the COVID‑19 pandemic. That included mandatory vaccination. Last October, we implemented a policy requiring that all public employees of the core public administration, including the RCMP, be vaccinated. This requirement applies to all employees, whether they are working remotely or working on site. It also applies to contractors who require federal access to federal government work sites. Employees who have to travel to a federal workplace need assurances that every possible measure has been taken to ensure their health and safety. A fully vaccinated workforce not only makes workplaces safer, but also enhances the safety of the communities in which these public servants live and work. Vaccination also builds better protection for Canadians who access government services in person, including the most vulnerable members of our communities. Vaccines are the best way to bring this pandemic to an end, and public servants have stepped up, with 99% of the federal core public administration attesting to being fully vaccinated. We recognize that some public servants are not able to be vaccinated, whether because of a medical contraindication, on religious grounds or on another prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. These employees can request accommodation, but this is not new. Employers are required to ensure that they do not discriminate on a prohibited ground and, at the federal level, the Canadian Human Rights Act has been in effect since 1977. Since that time, the public service has implemented robust processes to review accommodation requests, as evidenced by the Directive on the Duty to Accommodate and other instruments and guides. Accommodations related to the vaccination policy continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the facts and circumstances that may be unique to a specific individual or workplace. When it comes to a request for accommodation, managers are not making these decisions on their own. They are supported by experienced human resource professionals who receive policy guidance from the office of the chief human resources officer and are supported by legal and privacy advisers. I can assure the House that there has been no discernible impact on the government's operations or on the services Canadians receive every day. From the beginning of the pandemic, we made a commitment to Canadians that we will protect their health and safety. We have in place measures to protect workers and our communities. As circumstances change, we will adjust these measures. We have always followed advice from our public health experts. We have committed to reviewing this policy every—

Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to repeat the point I made during my speech. The federal government has required vaccination for the entire core public administration of the federal government. We believe that the most fundamental responsibility of any government is to ensure the health and safety of its citizens. As the largest employer in the country, we have an obligation to ensure that public servants work in a safe and healthy environment, whether that is in an office or service centre, at the border, at home or elsewhere. A fully vaccinated workforce results in safer workplaces and safer communities across the country. This policy is about public health, and the overwhelming majority of public servants have stepped up and have been vaccinated. Public servants are responding to the need to make sure that Canadians are safe and healthy during the pandemic, and the government will continue to protect its employees.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has, of course, one of the finest public services in the world. We have professionals who have been able to help support Canadians throughout the troubling times that we have had during the pandemic. We are very proud of our public service. Of course, we want to make sure that public servants are compensated fairly and if they have a compensation system that if they do meet their targets, of course, they are being compensated appropriately. We are very lucky to have such a professional public service.

Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to understand my hon. colleague who knows the many issues regarding Canada's public service. Is he suggesting that we should compensate folks who do not meet their targets? I am certain that is not what he suggested. What we are really talking about is our fabulous public service that has worked very hard and has helped Canadians through very tough times. We are certainly making sure that they are continuing to do the proper work that they do to serve Canadians and serve all of us here.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. This is an important bill. As we know, along with indigenous languages, English and French are at the heart of Canada's history and identity. They are a major part of our country's social, cultural and economic vitality. Our government has always emphasized the importance of official languages in Canada, and we consider them to be not only a solemn responsibility, but also a way of recognizing the diversity and inclusion that define our country. As a proud francophile, Quebecker and Canadian who represents the wonderful riding of Hull—Aylmer, I know how important that responsibility is. I represent what is likely the most bilingual riding in the country. Not only do my constituents speak both French and English, but they speak them well. Part of this responsibility includes promoting the spirit of the Official Languages Act. The act is not only important to members here and federal public servants, but it is important to all Canadians. It is a reflection of who we are. Our world is changing fast, and linguistic realities are changing too. The linguistic context is in the midst of a major transformation, making an in-depth reform of this law necessary. The reality is that bilingualism has been part of Canada's identity from the very beginning. In fact, it was in 1867, the year of Confederation, that English and French became the official languages of the Parliament of Canada. In the 1960s, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, who also wore a bow tie, I might add, today being bow tie Thursday, established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission made recommendations for measures to ensure that Canadian Confederation would develop based on the principle of equality between francophones and anglophones in Canada. Those same recommendations would later form the basis of the very first version of Canada's Official Languages Act, which passed in 1969, the year I was born. For the first time, the act made English and French the official languages in Canada, not just of Parliament, but of Canada. It stated that Canadians had the right to access federal services in the official language of their choice. In 1988, the new version of the Official Languages Act updated and clarified the linguistic rights of individuals and the obligations of federal institutions. As the House knows, our government has taken important measures over the past few years, first by amending the official languages regulations for services to the public, and now with the Official Languages Act. We held vast consultations with many stakeholders and we listened to what they had to say. Their comments were essential in the context of amending the regulations in order to make them more inclusive and representative of Canadian society. These changes, which will be implemented over the next few years, will pave the way for the creation of some 700 new bilingual offices across the country. This is a big step forward in terms of providing services to Canadians in the official language of their choice. Whether on the front lines or behind the scenes, our federal public servants provide these services. Every day, they communicate with Canadians in the official language of their choice. The government is committed to providing federal services in both official languages and to promoting a public service that fosters the use of French and English. We have made significant progress because today's public service is much more bilingual than it was when I was born. Today, more than 90% of executives in the public service occupy bilingual positions. In surveys, most employees report that they feel free to use the language of their choice at work, but we know that the system is not perfect and that we must do better. Bill C-13 marks an important step in the modernization and strengthening of the Official Languages Act. I would like to present the changes proposed by the bill. The bill will do more than just give the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat the authority to monitor the compliance of federal institutions with their language obligations. In fact, it will require the department to do so. What is more, the Treasury Board will work with the Department of Canadian Heritage to establish policies and regulations that will help federal institutions take positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and promote linguistic duality in Canadian society. These policies and regulations will also help to hold federal institutions accountable in this regard. It will now be easier to ensure that federal institutions meet their official language obligations. This will also help to increase the linguistic capacity of our public service. What do these changes mean for Canadians? They likely mean two big things: a greater number of services for all Canadians in the official language of their choice and greater emphasis on the needs of Canada's official language minority communities. For the past 50 years, the Official Languages Act has not only given Canadians basic language rights but also shaped our country's identity. We are a country that respects and celebrates diversity and inclusion. I think Canada made a unique choice, not on purpose, but out of necessity. The French arrived in the New World, the North American continent, and, thanks to the kindness and hospitality of the indigenous peoples, they survived frigid winters and came to understand that no one could go it alone here, that everyone had to work together. When the British arrived in North America some time later, instead of absorbing the different societies, as they had done in many other countries, they made room for the French. They allowed the French to keep their culture, their education and their system of laws, and francophones were able to keep their identity as francophones. This makes Canada a country unlike any other. I do need to point out a certain character trait that Canada has developed over the years, decades and centuries. We tend to accommodate others rather than simply forcing them to adopt our point of view. I think this is reflected in Canada's official languages, and we must promote them, especially for Canadians who belong to minority communities across Canada. The Official Languages Act is more than just a law. It is a reflection of our country's evolution and a part of our Canadian identity. This bill strengthens bilingualism across the country to make sure that Canadians can access services in the official language of their choice. I call on all members to work together and support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will never admit to that. We took the time that was needed to do things right. I think it is important to make the right changes when modernizing this act. The last time the act was reviewed was in 1988 under the Mulroney government. I commend Mr. Mulroney for updating the act, but that was 34 years ago. Back in 1988, I was a parliamentary page. I remember when this bill was amended. It takes time to do things right. I am very proud of the proposals that have been made. I hope that all members are prepared to do their part to once again improve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me answer in the language in which the member addressed her question. I thank the member for Nunavut for the incredible work she has done. The member for North Island—Powell River is an extraordinary member of Parliament, but I have to say that the contributions the member for Nunavut has made in terms of what we are looking at on indigenous languages will truly be historic. In the same vein, the update to this law is taking very big steps to protect and to promote indigenous languages. I think the member will be very happy to learn of the provisions in this bill that would allow us to take some really big steps to recognize the first peoples of this continent and to make sure they are able to continue expressing themselves in their language. I have to say how important this is. Language is a world view. You know this, Mr. Speaker, in the incredible work that you have done in learning the other official language. We all know, those of us who have the pleasure of knowing different languages, that it changes the way we think. Any steps we can take to preserve and promote indigenous languages are steps well worth taking.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech. However, I would like to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, because I just assumed that you had learned French, but you are a francophone by birth from an Acadian community. On that note, I would like to ask my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable what he thinks about the importance of passing Bill C‑13 today to help minority language communities. Like Acadians in Nova Scotia, these communities do not all necessarily have access to francophone educational institutions ranging from early childhood to post-secondary education to ensure that the French fact is strengthened in these communities.

Mr. Speaker, American civil rights leader Martin Luther King said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. He made that comment in the context of the consensus stemming from the Second World War that everyone should be treated equally. Civil rights were granted to women, racial minorities, religious practitioners, and people of all sexual orientations, gender identities and abilities. The extension of rights to all these citizens is a sign of a healthy society. I am concerned about the draft ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, which could become the first example of rights being overturned in that country. Once that starts, where will it stop? Although this is an issue affecting Americans, we must ensure that we stand up for women's rights in Canada. To extend rights to one is to preserve rights for all. To limit the rights of some is to weaken the rights of all.

Mr. Speaker, each fiscal year, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, collects data on the number of requests received, completed, closed, outstanding, carried over and responded to according to legislative timelines (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), as well as 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). 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 can be 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 the Privacy Act, which institutions table in Parliament and publish online each fall. The latest available data is for fiscal year 2020-21 (April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021). Data for fiscal year 2021-22 is expected to be collected by the end of September 2022 and published by December 31, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their politicians to come together and get to work to help make their lives better. The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party have agreed to improve the way we approach politics over the next three years for the benefit of Canadians. The parties have identified key policy areas where there is a desire for a similar medium-term outcome. This work will be focused on growing our economy by creating green jobs that fight the climate crisis, making people’s lives more affordable with housing and childcare, and expanding and protecting our healthcare. As the basis for this work, it is fundamental for the parties to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Both parties hope that by approaching this Parliament more collaboratively, we will be able to deliver on these shared policy objectives before the next election. Both parties believe strongly in Parliament’s role to hold the government to account. Nothing in this agreement will undermine that critical function. The parties will not always agree, and they will continue to seek to work with other parties in Parliament on the priorities that are the subject of this agreement and for other objectives. This agreement is about ensuring those differences do not stand in the way of delivering on shared goals for the benefit of each and every Canadian.

Madam Speaker, 2022 was a difficult year for Hull—Aylmer. I would like talk about Claude LeBlanc, who died suddenly on March 20 at the age of 67. For almost 40 years, Claude was Garage Grande-Rivière's mechanic and owner. He was honest, hard-working and generous. He loved a good joke. He was the most generous of men. He was always there to help the less fortunate in our community. Not only did Claude give good mechanical advice, he would charge next to nothing, if anything at all, to people in need. I have been going to his garage for more than 20 years. Unfortunately for me, I only sat down with him twice. I thought there would be time for us to get to know each other better. I extend my most sincere condolences to his brothers, Pierre and Gilles, his sisters, Line and Sylvie, his nieces and nephews, and his young business partner and good friend Justin Fortin. Rest in peace, Claude.

Madam Speaker, our government believes those who disclose serious wrongdoing should be protected. The Office of the Public Security and Integrity Commissioner of Canada is an independent agency of Canada. It is mandated to allow anyone to disclose wrongdoing in the federal public service. I have been advised that information has been removed by the Federal Court, and a new certified tribunal record is being produced. Later this year, our government will be launching a review to strengthen the protection of whistle-blowers. Clearly, this incident raises serious questions, which we will discuss in that review.

Madam Speaker, having a fully vaccinated workforce makes our work sites and communities safer. When we asked employees of the federal public service to stand up and do their part, 99% said yes. We are committed to review this policy every six months. Right now, we are in the middle of a review. We will make our decisions based on science and on facts. I look forward to keeping this House updated on that.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the access to information process supports the transparency and accountability of Canadian federal institutions. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, TBS, welcomes the Information Commissioner’s observations and recommendations on how the government can continue to ensure that the right of access to information for Canadians is upheld. TBS continues to work with institutions to support and share guidance, best practices, and operational solutions to help them overcome operational challenges. The length of extensions that are taken by institutions is assessed on a case-by-case basis wherein the volume and complexity of the information for the specific request are taken into consideration. This includes time extension requirements to consult with other government institutions and/or with third parties. In addition, institutions are required to inform the Office of the Information Commissioner, OIC, when extending the initial request reply period beyond an additional 30 days. There also exists a recourse mechanism whereby a requester who feels that the extension is unreasonable may file a complaint with the OIC. The government has made significant improvements to access to information over the years. Recent amendments to the Access to Information Act have increased government openness and transparency by requiring the online publication of more government information. In addition, summaries of completed access to information requests are currently published every 30 days on the Open Government portal and removed after a period of two years. TBS is working on extending the retention of these summaries beyond two years. The Government of Canada remains focused on improving the systems that support access to information and privacy requests, helping institutions to address outstanding requests and continually improving ATI program performance. In budget 2021, the government invested $12.8 million to support further improvements to the online access to information and personal information request service, to accelerate the proactive release of information to Canadians, and to support completion of the Access to Information Act review. This review is an opportunity to explore how new tools and approaches could improve efficiency and make information more open and accessible to Canadians. The review will further examine the legislative framework, identify improvements to proactive disclosure to make information openly available, and assess processes and systems to improve service and reduce delays. A list of key actions, implemented, planned or under way, to improve access to information and transparency is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/reviewing-access-information/the-review-process/key-actions-access-information.html.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about my extraordinary former assistant, Olivier Duhaime. We met in the summer of 2015 while running in Gatineau Park. He became my first political aid on the Hill. Olivier is an ultra-marathoner. For the 150th anniversary of Canada, he ran from Quebec City to Ottawa in five and a half days. He is extremely intelligent, which explains why he left me to join the team of the infrastructure minister at the time. Nine months ago, Olivier and Justine became parents to a beautiful daughter named Léa. However, our dear Olivier is now facing his biggest challenge yet, a fight against cancer. I almost pity those cancer cells, because Olivier is a determined man. He will beat cancer the same way he tackles his 180-kilometre ultra-marathons: one step at a time. I invite members to join me in showing love and support for Olivier with a big round of applause.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in the House to share my perspective, not only as a member with official duties here in Parliament, but also, more importantly, as a Quebecker. I am speaking today as a proud member of Parliament from Quebec, my home province, the place I grew up in and the place my parents immigrated to. They settled and started a family in Quebec. Quebec is where I have had the pleasure of spending almost my entire life, aside from a few years at university. Quebec is where I have chosen to start my family and where my wife and I have raised our three children. Quebec is also where my two grandchildren were born. I am a proud Quebecker through and through. I love the passion of the member for La Prairie, but as I was listening to his impassioned speech, I sometimes felt that he missed the point a bit. Allow me to explain. Let us look at what the Bloc Québécois motion that was moved in the House today by the member for Beloeil—Chambly says. That, in the opinion of the House: (a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec’s political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; and (b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly. There is a fine line here. I agree with part of the motion but disagree with another part. I will explain and provide my reasons for that in the hopes of convincing all of my colleagues from all parties, particularly those outside Quebec, to see things the way I do. I will start by establishing the basis for my argument. Then I will explain the options that are available. That is where I disagree with the Bloc motion. Finally, I would like to propose a solution that I hope the Bloc will play a constructive role in. Here is the part I agree with. Quebec should not lose a seat in the House of Commons. As my colleague, the NDP House leader and member for New Westminster—Burnaby said, there is a way to establish a threshold, a minimum, that would prevent Quebec from losing a seat. I think it can be said that no province should lose seats. The part I disagree with is what is implied in the second part of the Bloc's motion, that “[the reduction of] Quebec’s political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected”. I do not want Quebec to lose its demographic weight. However, there is a fairly simple solution to ensure that that does not happen. Quebec must keep its demographic weight. We are a long way from the Canada of 1867. The way to do it in 2022 is to find a solution by trying to bring up the birth rate and the immigration rate. We must encourage people, especially francophones, to come and settle in Quebec from elsewhere in Canada. I have a good example, but I would like to start with some facts. There are four formulas for determining the number of seats in the House of Commons. A very precise non-partisan system has been developed over the years. The formula for assigning the number of seats has evolved since Confederation in 1867. We know that there was a lot of what is known as politicking back then, and a lot of gerrymandering to determine the ridings. Fortunately, those days are gone and we now have a strictly non-partisan system for determining ridings in Canada. How do we determine the number of seats in each province and territory? There are four steps. First, the initial number of seats must be established. “The number of seats initially allocated to each province is calculated by dividing the population number of each province by the electoral quotient.” The electoral quotient for the year 2022 is 121,891. “The electoral quotient is obtained by multiplying the quotient of the last decennial redistribution (111,166) by the average of the population growth rates of the 10 provinces (9.647%) in the last 10 years.” The last decennial redistribution took place in 2011. Canada is growing so fast, it is incredible. It has grown by almost 10% in 10 years. Quebec is also growing, but unfortunately, not at the same rate as the national average. The second step in calculating seats is the application of special clauses that have been established over the years. This means that “adjustments are made to account for the ‘senatorial clause’”, which “guarantees that no province has fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate.” We see this in the case of Prince Edward Island, an island that was part of Canada at the time of its founding. To ensure its entry into the Confederation, it was promised four seats in the House of Commons and four seats in the Senate. Not only is there this senatorial clause, but there is also the grandfather clause, which “guarantees each province no fewer seats than it had in 1985”. At the time, if I am not mistaken, it was Saskatchewan that was losing a seat because of a shrinking population, so the grandfather clause was created. The third step is the application of the representation rule. Following the application of the special clauses, if a province that was overrepresented in the House of Commons at the completion of the last redistribution process becomes under-represented relative to its population, it will be given extra seats so that its share of seats is proportional to its share of the population. This is very important, and this rule has only been applied to Quebec. It goes back some 30 years. It is important to reinforce that this rule applies if its share of seats is not proportional to its share of the population. The fourth step deals with territorial seats and the final calculation. Basically, each territory is guaranteed one seat in the House of Commons. This is a way of ensuring that there will always be at least three seats. Under this formula, the commission is suggesting that a seat be taken away from Quebec. As I said at the outset, as a Quebecker, I do not think that is desirable. That is why we must do everything we can to avoid this situation. We must therefore figure out how we can avoid it, given what we have in front of us. I think that the way to do this is to revisit that grandfather clause. This is important, and I think that this is the solution. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois motion goes a bit further. Not only does it call for Quebec to not lose a seat, but it also calls for Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons not to be reduced. There is one province that has not lost a seat: Prince Edward Island. Each member in that province represents about 40,000 people. I do not want that to happen in Quebec. Quebec is not Prince Edward Island. I have a lot of respect for my Islander friends. I love them, and I love visiting their province. However, I do think that Quebec is distinct, and so I do not want there to be a commitment that Quebec will always be guaranteed a quarter of the seats in the House of Commons, regardless of its population. We could end up with a situation where members would represent very few people compared to their colleagues in other provinces. I think that this would diminish our legitimacy. As I said at the beginning, I am speaking as the proud member for Hull—Aylmer and a proud Quebecker. I think that the solution is to set a threshold for Quebec, to make sure that Quebec does not lose a seat. In the meantime, I hope that the Bloc Québécois will join me in promoting the long-term solution. That solution is to think about getting more people to come to Quebec to learn the French language and to embrace our beautiful culture and our beautiful language. I think that this is really the solution. This is really the solution, and I urge the Bloc Québécois to support this idea. I heard the hon. member for La Prairie speak of his love of immigration and new Quebeckers. I agree with him wholeheartedly. We need to go a bit farther, encourage immigration, request our share of immigrants and target countries where there are people who would like to settle in Canada or Quebec and live in French. I will use the five minutes I have left to describe one fine example, namely my riding of Hull—Aylmer, which is growing rapidly. Where is this growth coming from? Immigration, in particular from French-speaking Africa. These people settle in Quebec and are fluent in French since it is their first language. They are prepared to adapt their culture and adopt the culture of our beautiful region, Outaouais. Many of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois temporarily become my constituents five days a week when Parliament is sitting. I appreciate their presence and enjoy being their representative here in the House of Commons. Outaouais, and especially Hull—Aylmer, is the second most popular immigration destination in Quebec. Of course, more immigrants arrive in Montreal, but only two-thirds of them stay there. In Outaouais, and especially in Hull—Aylmer, the western part of that region, 98% of immigrants from French-speaking Africa settle there permanently. We are very welcoming. We are a model for Quebec. We are very grateful to these people for their contribution to our joie de vivre and our way of seeing things. They too are proud Quebeckers. They are also proud Canadians. What I am proposing is the model to follow, and it is feasible. No one can convince me that we could not find 100,000 francophones in the world who would like to settle here and benefit from what we have in Quebec. That is obvious. That is the long-term solution. I urge my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to join me and become part of the solution, as they did yesterday with their excellent work during the debate on Ukraine. I saw the willingness of Bloc members to be part of the solution. They could amend their motion before the end of the day. I am reaching out and inviting them to be part of the solution. We must find a way to get all members on board with the motion, in order to make sure that Quebec keeps the same number of seats. We need to find a solution to make sure that Quebec not only maintains its demographic weight in Canada but actually increases it, as it should. I would be proud to be a part of that.

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my friend from Beauport—Limoilou, but I would like to ask her a question. I imagine she was always a great supporter of the Bloc Québécois, which was founded in 1990. How did she vote in the 1992 referendum? What was the Bloc’s official position on that referendum? I myself voted “yes” in the referendum, but I am certain that many of the members of the Bloc urged Quebeckers to vote “no”. There needs to be a little consistency between the positions adopted in 1992 and those adopted today.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, or should I say my constituent, for his questions. I will answer several right now and keep his final question for last, so that I can give a more thorough answer. The answer is yes. Not only do I recognize that Quebec is a nation, but I am very happy that it is recognized as such. This is my answer, and so on for all the other questions, except the final one. Canada and Quebec have an immigration agreement. Quebec said it was going to establish immigration levels. However, for many years, the admission target did not even reach 51,000 immigrants. Then it lowered that target to 40,000. That will not help Quebec maintain its demographic weight in Canada. We agree on the advantages and importance of immigration, but if we do not let people in, that does not make sense. I think that it is very important to open Quebec up to francophone immigrants and to focus on that aspect. Francophone immigrants are ready to come to Quebec to continue speaking their first language. In western Africa and, I hope, in other parts of the world, there are a lot of people who would like to settle here. I think that there is a single solution that would enable us to address both issues. Once again, I invite my friends in the Bloc Québécois to join me in proposing something that everyone can support.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his question. I think that French needs a lot of support, since it is very fragile. If you look at the situation closely, I agree that we can do better. That is why I am supporting the Minister of Official Languages, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. I think that there is always a way to help strengthen, promote and safeguard the French language in Canada, not only in Quebec, but especially in northern Ontario and across the country. French is always in a very precarious situation. We must make a deliberate effort to support French across Canada. I hope that this will bear fruit and that the French fact will thrive outside Quebec for centuries to come.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer the question asked by my friend from Winnipeg North. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Immigration is truly an extraordinary tool for our culture, our demographic growth and our economic development. As they say, more immigration is always good news. When immigrants arrive here, they create jobs, use fewer social services, establish companies and help diversify our culture. Immigration is extremely important, especially for the francophone community in Manitoba. I also know that Franco-Ontarians were able to maintain their demographic weight thanks to immigration. Consequently, we need to do more to encourage immigration. I hope that I can convince my colleagues from Quebec to support me in this effort to increase francophone immigration levels in Quebec.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Montarville for his excellent speech. I also thank him for his show of solidarity on behalf of all parliamentarians in the House and certainly on behalf of his political party. I was planning to offer him some time to finish his speech because I thought it was good. However, he was able to add a few words at the end. I have a question for my colleague. If the world allows Russia to continue to invade the country, this will send a bad message. As the saying goes, might makes right. As a Canadian and as a Quebecker, that is something I cannot tolerate. Does my colleague see things the way I do? I would like his opinion on that.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach for his speech and his point of view. I put this question to my colleague from Montarville. I am sure my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach also agrees that we need to push back against the idea that might makes right in international relations. Does he agree with me that economic sanctions are more effective than military force at getting Russian oligarchs to see that enough is enough, that they like all their pretty things and that they would prefer peace to continuing the invasion of Ukraine?

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's comments. I found that his speech was supported by several arguments. That said, I have a question for him about what he said at the end of his presentation. Is that a good enough excuse to do nothing about what he too described as the far right that exists here, that has the money and the tools to do damage? In 50 years' time, we may regret it if we decided to do nothing today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say hello to all of my colleagues on this Saturday morning. It is unusual for the House to sit on a Saturday, but our entire country is dealing with a situation that is quite out of the ordinary. We are here to participate in a very important debate on the use of these emergency measures. I am not a lawyer. I do not know and cannot figure out all of the little details, but in my opinion, we need look at only two things. First, the Ottawa Police Service said yesterday that it would be unable to put an end to what is happening in Ottawa and the national capital region without the special measures set out in the Emergencies Act. Second, we are here on a Saturday morning. Yesterday, it was not safe enough for MPs or senators to come to Parliament. We made an unusual decision to cancel a sitting of Parliament, which is why we are here on a Saturday morning to hold this debate. All of the party leaders in the House—the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberal Party—agreed with the Speaker of the House of Commons that something was happening here, that it was not safe, and that parliamentarians could not come to work. That is very uncommon. What I would really like to talk about is the other measures applicable to the funding of extremist groups. I was born in Montreal into one of a few Black families in my area, in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood in a francophone city, a francophone province, an English country and a largely English continent. I like to consider myself a minority within a minority within a minority within a minority. It offers me an interesting view of things. I can see the way the dominant view is carried out because that is the dominant view. It is natural; it is in the air. However, I can also step back a bit and just see things a little ex centrum, or off centre. I have always felt that is a strength. I always think it is an ability to see life a bit more fully: three dimensions instead of two and more colour than just in black and white. When I saw what was happening in the lead-up to this convoy, there were things that I was able to see that I do not think other people would see as clearly. Perhaps I am wrong, but give me a chance to explain it. We know the convoy organizers are the same people who have tried to organize other protests about random issues. In 2016, we had Motion No. 103 against Islamophobia. They tried to rally folks and spark a grassroots protest against the motion. I am talking about Tamara Lich, Benjamin Dichter, James Bauder and Patrick King. Those very same people tried to get Canadians up in arms so they could spread their white supremacist way of thinking. They failed in 2016, so they tried again last year with the United We Roll campaign. Again, there was not much buy-in. This time, they succeeded for one good reason: Canadians are tired. Everyone is exhausted. Nobody likes the pandemic, nobody likes restrictions and nobody likes lockdowns. The virus does not care what we think. Canadians are exhausted, and these people took advantage of that general sense of fatigue. The people who showed up to express their disagreement with mandatory vaccination, lockdown measures and all the other measures implemented by federal, provincial and municipal governments have the right to do so. I am not talking about those people. The people I am talking about are the organizers who exploit that exhaustion to recruit people on social media and spread messages of hate. We know very well that algorithms enable groups on social media to use extremist statements to attract other people, who then make more frequent appearances online. There is no way to avoid that. When people are constantly exposed to hate, they eventually start buying into that way of thinking. In 2016, when Motion No. 103 was moved, the movement engaged some 10,000 people on Facebook, according to the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. They spread their message and, at one point, they had almost 200,000 subscribers, which was unheard of. They hit gold. They now have what is estimated to be over a million people on Facebook. This one million people they have identified do not know what is about to hit them. They are going to get messages over and over again, hateful messages, intolerant messages and misinformation, and guess what? They are also going to be solicited for money. Look at the money that has come in. All of us in the House face very strict financing rules. With the transparency and financing rules, we can only give a maximum of $1,650. That is a good thing. When we give to a charity, there is a whole bunch of transparency and reporting when it happens. Guess what happens when these folks give through crowdsourcing? There is nothing. There is no transparency, not at all. They raised $16 million on one site and another $16 million on another, 40% to 50% of which, it is estimated, came from outside the country. The names are ridiculous. It says Mickey Mouse gave and so did the current Prime Minister. He obviously did not contribute. That is not good. The financial measures we have are for good reason. If nothing else, it was worth putting them in the orders. I hope that legislation will follow so that on a permanent basis we can get this kind of wrong money out of the Canadian political system.