Debates of Oct. 29th, 2024

Privilege

[An hon. member]

Tell us.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have to do it by taking more tax dollars from Canadians.

One of my Liberal friends said, “Tell us.” In an earlier part of my speech, which I will repeat, I said the government does not actually have any money; it only has the money it takes from Canadians. The government has never made a dollar ever, so if it is going to pay back debt, it has to take more money away from Canadians, which will not allow them to fill their cars with gas, take their kids to hockey or put groceries on the table to feed their families. That is what we are talking about. The Prime Minister can go on national TV and say the government will take on debt so Canadians will not have to, but that is an absolute fallacy.

There are a few more scandals I can get through before my time is done. I remember the next one very well, because we were here on the floor of the House, which was illegally invoking the Emergencies Act in February 2022. This is another scandal that will continue to grow as we get further down the road. There was a commission, and it was ruled that the government of the day, and I think it was a former public safety minister who did it, invoked the Emergencies Act illegally in order to take the rights and everyday freedoms away from Canadians.

I know my Liberal colleagues do enjoy a speech, and they are going to hear more and more about some of the scandals they have been involved with throughout the years. I know the backbenchers are feeling their oats, because they had another caucus meeting. I hope a few of them threw their names on another list. Perhaps they will be on the speaking list tomorrow morning and can share some of the wisdom that they have gained over the years with the Prime Minister. I do not know if Katie allows them to speak or how that works, but hopefully members sent their emails so they can get on the speaking list in their caucus meeting tomorrow. To be a fly on that wall; that would be an interesting meeting to be part of.

I hope no one's hand is too sore from writing their name so many times on a piece of paper asking for the Prime Minister to resign. To be fair, we do understand how that works. We are hoping those members do get a few more signatures on that paper over the next few weeks. I think members would really appreciate that. Canadians would appreciate these members standing up for them and making sure the government knows how Canadians feel about the current leader.

I just saw some approval ratings for the Prime Minister, actually. In Saskatchewan, he is running at an approval rating of -51%. That is tough. Winter is actually ahead of him right now. It is pretty hard to be that unpopular in Saskatchewan.

I would like to get back to the issues at hand, especially when it comes to SDTC and the privilege motion. I for sure can bring it back to another Liberal scandal, such as the scandal of 380 million taxpayers' dollars that were given to Liberal insiders and the fact that the Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest in the grants that were delivered.

I believe the board members were all appointed by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. The fact that board members were voting in a board meeting to give their own companies taxpayers' dollars is really the central issue. The fact is these people, who were put on the board by the Prime Minister, voted in a board meeting to give themselves money.

The Auditor General found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that on occasion could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or the development of green technology. There was $334 million over 186 cases given to projects in which board members held a conflict of interest. We have said that a few times. As well, $58 million was given to projects without ensuring contribution terms were met.

How, when there is a board, do its members not realize that $58 million was given out and there were no performance metrics? Board members had no idea if these projects were actually going to do what they were supposed to do. I know this is uncomfortable for some of our colleagues across the way. This is going to be like the Paul Martin-Chrétien ad scam. We all know there have been comparisons, but the whistle-blower said that ad scam would pale in comparison to how corrupt this is.

As the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, Liberals got a Liberal. It is just in their DNA.

As a young lad, when I was at the University of Regina, I took Canadian politics. I graduated with a political science degree. I wrote a paper called “Have the Liberals Lost Legitimacy to Govern?” It was about the Afghan issue, but there are so many similarities to this. I know some members across the way will remember the name Jack Wiebe. He was my neighbour back where I grew up, in Rush Lake. Jack was a Liberal MLA. He was then a lieutenant-governor in Saskatchewan for 10 years and then he was appointed as a Liberal senator. He had a lot of connections.

When I interviewed Jack for my paper, he said yes, the Liberals had lost legitimacy to govern, because they had lost the trust of the Canadian public. It is amazing how history repeats itself if we do not learn from it. That is exactly what is happening to the current iteration of the Liberal Party. It is a far cry from Jack's party, I will admit, and from the Chrétien and Martin days, but the Liberals have repeated the same mistakes over and over again. They have become out of touch.

The current group of NDP-Liberals think the Canadian people are there for them to govern and should be working for them, instead of the other way around. That is when they start to think it is okay to give $8 million to Frank Baylis, who did not even create ventilators; it is okay for the Prime Minister to have $80,000 vacations given to him; it is okay for the Governor General to waste $100,000 by throwing private jet parties; and it is okay to decriminalize hard drugs.

We have not gotten to some of the scandals. I am very thankful the people who work in my office could make a complete list of Liberal scandals. I might hand it over to some of my colleagues. My staff got up to 68 scandals the Liberals have been a part of over the last nine years. Not only have the Liberals have been a part of 68 scandals, but the New Democrats continue to prop up the most corrupt government in the history of Canada.

I am from Saskatchewan and the NDP has a long history there. Can members imagine propping up the most corrupt government in the history of Canada just because the leader wants his pension? It is unbelievable. We all know we are going to be here past February 2025 because that is when the member for Burnaby South's pension is vested. We know the NDP will not find the constitutional fortitude to vote the Liberals down at least until that is vested.

How do the New Democrats go back to the people they represent and say, day after day, they support a government that wasted $380 million of taxpayers' money? They support a government that took away the rights and freedoms of Canadians because they wanted to have a conversation with the Prime Minister. They support a government that froze the bank accounts of Canadians who bought a T-shirt from people who were coming to have their voice heard.

The senior Trudeau, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, did the same thing and invoked the emergencies act, but the NDP was different then. Tommy Douglas said invoking the act was like “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.” He actually stood up for the rights and freedoms of Canadians, which were hard-fought. The current iteration of the NDP will bend over backward to make sure the leader gets his pension. The New Democrats have completely forgotten they are here to represent the people of Canada and not to prop up a corrupt government.

I wish I had a bit more time; maybe I will on another day. I know my colleagues immensely enjoyed hearing about some of the scandals, and I did not even get halfway through that list of 68. Well, maybe there are a few more I can get through.

This is interesting: sunlight is the best disinfectant, a transparent government. The Liberals have pushed through more than 72 secret orders in council. Here is another good one. The foreign affairs minister should listen to this one. Diplomats were sent to party with Russians while Russia invaded Ukraine. That was something I remember coming up, and she just said, “I do not know where my diplomats are.”

I will end by saying that the Saskatchewan people got it right last night in electing Premier Scott Moe's Saskatchewan Party government, and when we get a carbon tax election, Canadians will get it right in sending common-sense Conservatives to clean up the Liberals' mess once again.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member said one thing that I was interested in. I do not know how he arrived at it, but it was that “winter is ahead” of the Prime Minister in the polls. If he could explain that to me, I would appreciate it.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough but fair question. I will explain it to the hon. member. It is really cold in Saskatchewan. It gets down to about -40C, minus -50C, but not quite down to minus -51C, which is where the Prime Minister's approval rating is in Saskatchewan.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Regina—Lewvan. We are neighbours, and I am grateful for his service.

The member talked about money. Basically, his statement was that people do not pay taxes, but government takes taxes. He only had 20 minutes, and he tried to explain basic finances to our Liberal colleagues across the way, but I do not think he would have enough time in that 20-minute period. I would like to give him an opportunity to explain basic finances, how taxes work and how the people of Canada are getting robbed.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough but fair question. We are neighbours by happenstance, but we are friends by choice, and so I appreciate the comments coming from my colleague for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

I think sometimes people do not remember, but I remember that the member for Burnaby South sometimes tries to compare potatoes and apples when he is trying to figure out his grocery bill, and so we need to know the difference between a potato and an apple for starters. Second, when we are taking in less money than we are giving out, that is called a deficit. Finally, we should never have the highest spending of our revenues on debt financing. In Canada, in the next couple of years, the highest line item that Canadians are going to have to pay for is debt financing, and that goes straight to the heart of the Prime Minister saying that the government will take on debt so that Canadians will not have to. What a farce.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were told earlier that the Liberal Party is the one that has the power to do more in terms of an election. The Bloc Québécois thinks that the Conservative Party is the one that is being rather contradictory here, because it is paralyzing the work of Parliament, while saying that all it wants is to trigger an election. I would like my colleague to explain which of these things he really wants to do.

Does he want to trigger an election or does he want to extend the question of privilege and paralyze the government?

Which of these two contradictory things does he want to do?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and friend from the Bloc is mistaken. The Liberals could end this today. They would not even have to hear my speech. Produce the documents, give them to the RCMP unredacted and the business of the House will carry on. This is completely in the NDP-Liberal government's court. If they produce the documents to the RCMP unredacted, we can move on. However, unfortunately for them, I think the next thing on the agenda is the privilege motion regarding another one of their ministers, and so I guess we will be back talking about privilege regardless.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking a bit about the provincial elections, which gives me the opportunity to congratulate David Eby and the B.C. NDP on getting a third mandate. It also potentially gives him the opportunity to condemn the remarks of Conservative candidates in the B.C. election who were racist towards the Muslim community and indigenous communities. I would hope that everyone in the House, including that member, would condemn those comments.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what comment the member is talking about, but I will say to landslide Eby, congratulations to the Premier. I think he got a majority by a seat or two. Yes, there is an NDP government, and that gives me a chance to talk about NDP government scandals, which I never got to.

I am from Saskatchewan, and if we think that the list of 68 scandals is bad, I have a book here of 50 pages of NDP scandals of the provincial government in Saskatchewan. There are so many scandals that we are able to talk about. I am looking forward to having that conversation another day.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, from what the party across the way talks about, Canadians have never had it so good. I know from my hon. colleague's background with his family and kids, he would understand the people he represents and how Canadians have not had it so good.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this does come down to the heart of the issue, which is that Canadian families are struggling. It is getting harder and harder to make ends meet. No one in the House can disagree with that. Over two million people are going to food banks each month. It is harder, and it is harder than it has been for years.

When we talk about the families, when we do door knocking on the doorsteps in our community, the first thing that comes up is the affordability issue. My dad always said that, if we take care of the pennies, the dimes will look after themselves. The government has just spent way too much money, and it is coming out of the pockets of Canadians.

That is why we need to have a carbon tax election, so they can have their say, and see if they want to continue on the path they are on, or continue down a path with the common-sense Conservatives, who are going to put more money back in their pockets.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see a good team from Saskatchewan celebrating yesterday's victory of the Saskatchewan Party. There is no link between us and the Saskatchewan Party. It does not have the word “conservative” in its name. Maybe it is in their attitude, which is good, by the way.

Twenty years ago, the $42-million sponsorship scandal made headlines. Today, we are talking about $390 million in mismanaged funds. It is incredible to see how badly it was managed.

My question is this. Does my colleague think that this is this government's worst scandal? Is it WE Charity, ArriveCAN, the Prime Minister's trips, or SNC-Lavalin, and especially the expulsion of Jody Wilson-Raybould? Those are the other competitors contending for the title of this government's worst scandal.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question. There are so many scandals the government has been a part of in such a short time. The WE Charity scandal was over $600 million, and the Liberals actually prorogued Parliament and called an election to make sure that it did not get discovered how deep that went. There was the $300 billion that was supposed to be spent on COVID. No one knows where that money went.

That is another gigantic scandal when it comes to spending Canadians' money, but I think the biggest scandal was, and I think it goes to the heart of the person that is in the chair as the Prime Minister, on the first day of national reconciliation, the Prime Minister was surfing instead of spending time with indigenous communities in our country.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed I did not hear all 68 of the scandals from the member in his great speech, so I think it would be great to give the member a little more opportunity to maybe pick out another scandal or two, or maybe three or four, because I would love to hear a bit more of the scandals he has uncovered.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, do members remember CERB and how many people collected CERB that were in jail? There were some who were dead who collected CERB. That would be another scandal. Another one would be the fact the CBC gave bonuses to their executive and fired hard-working employees. Another one would be the CBC's travel. Catherine Tait travelled expansively and spent taxpayers' dollars like they were her own. Well, probably not like they were her own because she would have spent less.

How about letting Thomson Reuters treat the Prime Minister's chief of staff to the White House press correspondents dinner? Another one would be the Prime Minister, like I said, skipping the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to go surfing in Tofino. That is a huge scandal. Eliminating mandatory minimums for gun offences while going after law-abiding firearms owners is another scandal.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, my office released a documentary about the addiction crisis. People who are interested in this issue can go to eliteaddiction.ca to find out more about that documentary. In it, we talk specifically about the role of two companies, Purdue Pharma and McKinsey. This is a follow-up to a question I asked earlier about McKinsey.

Here is the story. Purdue Pharma developed a new opioid product, which they overpromoted with false information. This basically caused the opioid crisis. They told people that there was minimal risk of addiction and that, if they had any kind of issue with physical pain, they could take this drug without worrying about addictions. That, of course, was not true. Many people became addicted. They developed an escalating tolerance and physical demand for this drug. That led them to seek higher and higher doses of it and, eventually, to go to street drugs. This is the story of the opioid addiction crisis, in which many people were prescribed dangerous opioids that were overmarketed and overpromoted by Purdue Pharma. These people thought there would not be an addiction risk associated with it. They became addicted. They eventually switched to street drugs, and their lives were destroyed as a result.

Along the way, when Purdue Pharma started to face criticism about this, it went to a company called McKinsey, a global consulting firm. McKinsey provided advice to Purdue on how to supercharge sales of their opioids in the midst of these criticisms. Effectively, it was trying to supercharge the addiction crisis, which had already destroyed many lives and many families at that point. It would go on to continue to destroy many lives, families and communities.

This is a great blight on our society that I think must rightly be laid at the feet of these companies, Purdue Pharma and McKinsey. In the United States, these companies have been compelled to pay massive amounts of compensation, which has been redirected towards treatment and recovery. However, here in Canada, rather than holding companies such as Purdue and McKinsey to account, the Liberal government has continued to pay them and to pursue policies that have provided great financial advantage for them. In the case of Purdue Pharma, it has pursued a safe supply program; this leads to Purdue Pharma being paid to produce more dangerous drugs, which are then provided to those who are struggling with addiction at taxpayer expense. In the case of McKinsey, the government has hired McKinsey directly to provide advice.

Conservatives have said that we will sue those responsible for the opioid crisis for all the damages and redirect those funds to treatment and recovery. We would make the drug pushers pay, but the Liberals continue to pay the pushers. This is why we feel it is essential to challenge the government's close relationship with and massive spending on McKinsey. It is a choice to go to a company that is one of the actors responsible for the opioid crisis and ask it for advice on a whole range of issues to do with how to run the country. Why would we be paying McKinsey to provide advice instead of holding it to account for what it has done?

I specifically want to ask the government this: What is behind this close relationship with McKinsey? Will it stop paying the pushers and instead support our policy to make the pushers pay?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, the government indeed takes its responsibility as the steward of public funds very seriously. We are committed to making sure that government spending stands up to the highest levels of scrutiny. We have said many times already that we welcome and accept the findings and recommendations of the Auditor General and others with regard to their most recent report on procurement and professional services.

The findings are very much in line with several previous internal and external reviews relating to similar matters. These reviews are the basis for the work we have been doing for months now to implement stronger measures to improve oversight and controls of federal procurement. Our government is committed to taking action against bad actors, whether they be federal contractors, anti-abortion activists or homophobic hecklers. I am sure the member across the way agrees with me on the importance of all three.

Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, is the federal government's central purchasing agent and is committed to conducting procurements in an open, fair and transparent manner. Of course, the Government of Canada already has solid regulations, procedures and guidelines in place to make sure that anything that happens in every department is maintained appropriately, but we are always looking for ways to continuously improve our processes, to make them more rigorous and to ensure that decisions and justifications are properly documented along the way.

To that end, PSPC has already instituted several changes. These include introducing a mandatory requirement for contracting authorities to retain all documents related to contractual decisions about professional services. We have also changed how the department administers non-competitive national master standing offers by ensuring that justifications are on file. In addition, PSPC has created a new position: chief of contract quality assurance and records compliance. This will also help to ensure that critical elements of decision-making throughout the procurement process are properly documented, that guidelines and tools are put in place and that quality is being actively monitored.

These efforts are consistent with PSPC's commitment to continuously improve government procurement practices. I can tell the House that officials will keep looking for ways to strengthen the integrity of government procurement. For example, regarding the Auditor General's June 2024 report, we accept her recommendations to further strengthen measures to appropriately report and monitor potential conflicts of interest.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat now has a new mandatory procedure that provides the additional checks and balances for managers, to reinforce their responsibilities and accountabilities when undertaking professional services and procurement activities. Indeed, it is important to have proactive and rigorous processes in place to identify conflicts of interest and procurement processes. PSPC is supporting the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in the implementation of this new mandatory procedure to ensure that standards across all agencies are met.

I want to thank the Auditor General and her team for undertaking the review and for their findings and valuable recommendations. They will help us continue to improve our processes and further strengthen the integrity of federal procurement of professional services. Our government will do all that is possible to ensure that the best value for Canadian taxpayers and government procurement is maintained throughout the wide degree of procurement that occurs in the Government of Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some members of the House are well-read, and some have read well the sheets that have been given to them.

Here is my core question: Why McKinsey? I have detailed the history of McKinsey and its involvement in the opioid crisis. We could talk about how it helped the Saudi government identify dissidents. We could talk about its support for Chinese state-run and state-affiliated companies, including those involved in military and quasi-military activity. We could talk about contracts it had or some of the work it did in Russia. The record of McKinsey is well known, especially as it relates to its support for Purdue Pharma.

If we look back at the $200 million in contracts from the government, many of which did not meet the rules, it speaks to the fact that the government went out of its way to want to help the people at McKinsey. Why? What did it see in McKinsey? Why was it so keen to send taxpayer dollars to McKinsey?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the member's reinforcing the need for all of us, on all sides of the House, to take great care in the use of taxpayer monies for the purposes of providing services to Canadians.

McKinsey is one of many contractors that are being applied and used, and it has been for many years. It is not the largest, by far; it is actually one of the smallest ones. Notwithstanding, we are committed to finding the best value for money in all aspects of procurement, and we have to make sure that we have a proper governing framework in place that we have applied to these very issues. We are always looking at ways to improve procurement processes, as we always do. I appreciate the members opposite for their concern as well.

Labour

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour tonight to stand and to be able to see whether I can get some further clarification around a question I recently asked in order to be able to provide some clarification for federal workers across the country. I recently stood to speak to whether the government will be repealing the “one size fits none”, which is what it is being called, return-to-office mandate.

We know that the arbitrary mandate to return to the office three days a week blindsided federal workers. Superficially, it does not sound like a problem. Why would it be a lot to ask to ask people to go back to work three days a week? I need to really clarify what the issues are.

The issue is that it happened without due consultation with the exact people who are impacted by the decision. Workers across Canada were being told that they needed to return to work now three days a week, and there was not a bigger plan put in place. There was not a bigger discussion on how this would impact the workers we rely on to provide essential services across Canada.

I have heard from hundreds of concerned workers across the country in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, there are so many who are impacted by the decision. One example I want to bring to the attention of the House is that of a worker in my riding who came up to me to talk about his experience since the mandate was put in place. He shared with me that he was hired with flexible work arrangements, his productivity was great and he was doing important work for our country, but the return-to-work mandate has now placed him in a position where he needs to share a cubicle with other workers.

The workers are rotating through the cubicle. He has to put his items into a locker at the end of the day. He has to go to a designated room in order to make phone calls. Of course, he is making phone calls all day long. His productivity has decreased. His morale has decreased in his work. It is just so inefficient to ask a worker to go back to work and to sit in a seat when there is not even a seat there for them.

That is not the only issue I am hearing about from workers across Canada. Others were hired under the agreement that they would have flexible work arrangements. If we truly want to have representation in our federal workplaces, we need to be having these conversations.

For example, people have talked to me about an indigenous woman who lives in a rural community. She has been doing great work in what she is doing, but now she has been told she has to return to work. However, it is not possible for her to return to the office because the travel takes too long. She was hired under the assumption that she would be working in a hybrid model, and she is now being told that that this is no longer the case.

Parents and parents-to-be were told that they would have flexible work arrangements, and now, with no notice, they are being told they have to return to work. We all know how long the child care lists are across Canada. It is unfair to ask parents to suddenly change their entire working conditions to accommodate child care when there is no child care available to them because they were not given the notice needed to make those arrangements.

Employee morale is low. We know that it has just been so disheartening for people who are working in positions with flexible arrangements to feel as if they are being monitored on a daily basis. It is just incredibly challenging for workers.

My question to which I wanted to hear the answer from the government when I previously rose in the House is this: Will the government be repealing the decision, working alongside federal employees to make sure that there are arrangements to keep people in vital roles?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, our public service is composed of hard-working Canadians from across the country who are committed to providing the highest level of service to Canadians. Dedicated federal public servants serve Canadians day in and day out, from coast to coast to coast. The services they provide have a real and meaningful impact on Canadians every day.

While it is important to understand that each department and agency is unique, the experience of working in the federal public service, or receiving its services, should be the same across the country. That is why the public service implemented an updated common hybrid work model in September. The decision to make changes to the directive on hybrid work was an administrative one. It was made by the Treasury Board Secretariat, working with the Privy Council; this was not a political decision.

The updated model requires public servants to work on site for a minimum of three days a week when their tasks and functions allow. Executives are now required to be on site a minimum of four days a week so that they can best support their teams. To prepare for the implementation of the updated hybrid model, departments have been working closely with both PSPC and Shared Services Canada since May to ensure that there are enough well-equipped office spaces and technology for their employees.

While most organizations were ready to welcome all their employees to the office at least three days a week in September, we knew that some would require additional time because of renovations or the addition of extra workspaces. In these situations, implementation timelines were adjusted.

Recognizing the importance of union engagement, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat held a series of meetings with bargaining agents to discuss issues, such as office space, technology and privacy. It is important to note that the direction on prescribed presence in the workplace and the directive on telework are distinct from each other; moreover, neither is a part of the collective agreements.

However, even with all this preparation, we expected and planned for challenges. This is the reality of any changes within an organization as large, diverse and distributed as the federal public service.

As noted, contingency plans were established. Departments continue to carefully monitor implementation and to actively seek employee feedback to support the updated hybrid work model in their organizations. The clerks and department heads will continue to monitor implementation and optimization of this directive, ensuring fairness, flexibility and a focus on a high-performing public service that is delivering for Canadians.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that answer does not actually coincide with what I hear from workers in the community.

There is clear evidence that, with flexible work arrangements for federal workers, we saw increased productivity. We are in a climate crisis. We saw a significant decrease in carbon emissions during the time that there were flexible work arrangements compared with when the same workers were working full time. Just here in Ottawa, this stat shows that emissions have been 25% lower. In addition, in terms of taxes, we know that more public funds will have to go into making these improvements to the buildings that we are hearing about. Currently, the infrastructure is not in place.

Productivity was high and people were happy when working in a flexible work arrangement. Why is this not continuing to happen, and will the government repeal this decision?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the government is proud of the work of our public service. They work hard for Canadians every day, and the experience of working in the public service should be the same no matter where someone is in the country. We have adopted a common hybrid work model that aims to foster the kind of culture we need to best serve Canadians. While any transition of this scale has its challenges, I want to reassure the member in the House that federal departments and agencies continue to listen to employees' feedback to make sure they have the support they need.

This updated hybrid work model will build stronger teams and contribute to better service delivery for Canadians.