Debates of June 5th, 2024

First Nations Clean Water Act

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

I would remind the hon. member that I cannot expand on it, but the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach will.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to lift up the member for Winnipeg Centre's advocacy and work in relation to this important piece of legislation.

It is critical that we get not only the consent but also the input and consultation of indigenous groups. They have been so helpful. They have offered a place for us to discuss this issue by way of establishing a bilateral treaty table. If we could establish that today, before the bill goes to committee, we can imagine the power that would have. We could even summon and bring in some of those chiefs, and even better than that, meet them where they are and truly reignite the flames of co-operation and participation that the treaties speak of.

Let us recognize this place, Parliament, the Government of Canada, the Crown, and our deep need to become true treaty partners in the relationship we attempted to forge all those years ago. It is never too late to do the right thing.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in our House of Commons to debate topics, and tonight we have an incredible topic to discuss.

Before I start, I have to recognize the Brooks Bandits in my community for winning the cup this season.

When we talk about water, it is life. We have heard that said tonight. Rain is the critical piece because, without it, we do not have fresh water where we need it. Rain is the critical start to it. Since humans evolved a couple of hundred thousand years ago, the use of fresh, clean water has been vital. Human migration has led to sources of fresh water. People always move to where they can get fresh water, such as rivers, lakes and freshwater sources, because it is so critical.

As migration began to settle into specific areas, water was also conserved. Where people did not have running water and lakes, they looked for springs. Then they learned how to drill or dig wells. Part of the culture was to always look for fresh water to survive.

The Romans understood that they needed to build aqueducts to catch rain, which carried water through towns and cities. The longest aqueduct in the ancient world was over 400 kilometres long.

Modern advances in sanitation, industrialization and sanitation-based practices have led to an explosion of the use of water, and with it, a growth in populations. As populations grew, people moved into rural and remote areas, where they always experienced difficulty finding water. However, indigenous people in this part of the world knew where fresh water was. It was essential not only to their survival as human beings, but also to their spiritual needs.

In the world I live in, in recent times as a municipal leader, regional water was an issue because we had communities on boil water advisories. The consultations we held in a small area of communities did not happen overnight. It took months. It took years for people to understand that, to get rid of a boil water order, we needed to have hours of consultation.

I will mention that I will be splitting my time today with the member Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Consultation is so critical. At one point in time in our regionalization, we had a water treatment plant in the city I was the mayor of, but we needed to give that resource up to become part of a regional water system. I remember that the editor of the local newspaper never forgave me for giving up what he said was a resource for one community to be used regionally. It took a long time for that consultation process to happen. It took three years before those communities would no longer have any boil water advisories. That takes consultation, something that has been missing in this situation and something we need more of.

The recent government's history is that, in 2001, the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development began surveying water and waste water systems in indigenous communities across Canada to establish a baseline of information on existing drinking water infrastructure. That was just over 20 years ago. However, we knew the situation had existed for a long time, not just for over 20 years.

In 2003, the Government of Canada announced the first nations water management strategy and allocated $1.6 billion between 2003 to 2008 to it. It launched a plan of action for first nations drinking water, which was built on the first nations water management strategy, and it allocated an additional $60 million between 2006 and 2008 to address the findings of the 2005 report of the commissioner of the environment. That was only 20 years ago.

In 2008, the government introduced the first nations water and waste water action plan. According to a summary of the investments, “An additional $330 million was allocated to support the FNWWAP, which reinforced the PAFNDW while adding new objectives, including a commitment to consult with First Nations on new legislation as well as the commissioning of a national engineering assessment of the status of First Nations water systems across the country.”

In 2013, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act was created by the government to support the development of federal regulations to improve first nations' access to clean, reliable drinking water and the effective treatment of waste water.

I did not see anything, in all those dates that I read, about consultation. What I referred to in our communities and our municipalities took years, but I am not hearing about consultation. From 2015 to the present, the federal government spent $5.7 billion. Over $11 billion was spent between successive governments, and we are still facing the same problem: the boil water orders, unsafe drinking water in a developed G7 country.

It took the Liberal government nine years to introduce the legislation to protect clean water for first nations. In the press conference when the minister announced the proposed bill, she referenced a first nation that she says would benefit from the bill, without having met with it enough for consultation.

I say that, because I have met with the Blackfoot Confederacy chiefs who say they did not get consulted at any significant level on the proposed piece of legislation. What little they had suggested, they believed the minister had ignored. Those are not my words. They came from the chiefs of the Blackfoot Confederacy, which is a huge part of southern Alberta.

Canada is blessed with clean, fresh and safe drinking water. It is home to 20% of the world's fresh water. We have rain. We have 7% of the world's renewable water supply, yet safe clean drinking water has been unavailable for many of our indigenous communities.

This is not acceptable. An effort to provide fresh clean water for indigenous communities across the country—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have a point of order.

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

I was expecting that.

I will just remind the hon. member for Bow River that the possessive language is highly offensive in terms of first nations.

The hon. member for Bow River has the floor.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Please object if I make a mistake with that.

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

The hon. member for Edmonton—Griesbach is rising on a point of order.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a point of order on the use of possessive language, and I just want to invite the member to reflect on it. I know it is likely not purposeful or malicious, so I just wanted to reflect that it does harm to indigenous persons who are pursuing their sovereignty and their independence.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it may not be the last time—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You will learn. You will get it.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes, sometimes old dogs learn new tricks.

It is incumbent and the collective responsibility of everyone, especially the Government of Canada, to empower first nations and indigenous communities across the country to achieve self-determination on this issue. In order to get this right, the government must listen to all first nations, Inuit and Métis communities.

One size does not fit all. That is why the consultation is important. It is critical. We need to listen to many voices across our country. Many first nations communities, like the Blackfoot Confederacy, want that opportunity to express the concerns that they have. There are several provisions in the bill on clean water in general that require clarification: the quantity of water available for use and whether this quantity would be in conflict with provincial water licences; for which purposes the sufficient quantities of water would be guaranteed and if these purposes are to be altered, and that has been mentioned earlier; the definition of a protection zone, what lands are to be included in a given zone and the process of consultation agreement for these zones to be authorized; and the long-term maintenance, training and staff funding guarantees.

The study of Bill C-61 at committee is approaching. It is my hope that all parties will allow the opportunity to hear from all first nations that the government missed in its consultations. Other affected parties are concerned with freshwater legislation, such as provinces, which should be consulted as well, so unintended consequences may be avoided.

There are many questions that need to be answered on Bill C-61. The committee stage of the bill is not the time to rush through legislation. We need to get this right. This has gone on far too long. We need to make sure the legislation is not rushed and that we get it done right. It is our duty.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize the month of June as National Indigenous History Month, and recognize the significant movement forward on such an important piece of legislation. I think all members would reflect positively on those two things.

In regard to the issue of consultation, I do not know how many times the Prime Minister has been to Winnipeg. More often than not, meeting with and talking to indigenous leaders is a priority. Ministers who have come through the city of Winnipeg, and outside Winnipeg, are doing consultations.

I mentioned Shoal Lake 40 First Nation. The current Minister of Immigration was at the announcement of the water treatment plant. Shoal Lake 40 First Nation is the type of example we could lift up. Hopefully its members will get invited to the committee to have further discussions on the important piece of legislation before us.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his statement on this particular issue. I am not indigenous, but I know consultation and I know how important it is in the experiences I have had.

Oftentimes, people in this country put groups of people together as one. We cannot treat all indigenous people in this country as one group. We have to listen to the variety of voices and cultures to understand how critical the issue is to them. It is not just about the physical survival of water; it is also about the spiritual value of water, which has many connotations in many different parts of our country.

Consultations and listening to those expressions is important in order for indigenous people to be heard. They need to be heard and we need to give them the opportunity. It has taken a long time to get the bill to where it is. We must take the time to make sure all those voices are heard.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is currently studying the Auditor General's report 2 on the housing situation on reserves. Now we are talking about drinking water. These are obviously two necessities that are not privileges, but should be rights. We therefore agree with the principle of this bill.

Yesterday, the former clerk of the Privy Council, who was also the deputy minister of indigenous affairs for several years, told us that he thought that one possible solution was to create a Crown corporation that would solve all the problems on reserves.

Does my colleague really think that the solution is still in the hands of the federal government, when, year after year, it has proven that the solutions are in the hands of first nations and that they must be given self-determination so they can finally meet their needs?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not, because I have seen innovation with housing on Siksika Nation. Its people contracted a construction company from Ontario. It builds cement houses in 30 days. They are beautiful homes from start to finish, and they are turnkey.

Siksika Nation is innovative; it knows how to find solutions. We need to get out of the way and not build bureaucracy, because it has great innovation skills and can do a lot of things. We just get in its way. We want to see beautiful houses built, and the company is building phenomenal housing with cement in 30 days. It is incredible. Siksika Nation did not need us to do it; it did it itself.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were last in power, they pushed through a very unpopular bill about first nations drinking water that was not well thought out, Bill S-8. It eventually had to be repealed as a result of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit.

Can the member assure the House today that the Conservatives will help make sure the bill will not go down the same path?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems as though everybody wants to sue the government in power all the time. However, I want there to be legislation that is as good as it can be so that it limits the possibility of such a challenge happening.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was in the 2015 election that the Liberal Prime Minister made a promise that he was going to end drinking water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021. He was very specific. He gave a date and a timeline.

Then, in 2020, as the government was approaching that self-imposed deadline, the former minister of indigenous services said that “by spring 2021, the number of [communities under long-term drinking water] advisories...could [amount] to 12”. It is three years after that promised deadline, and we have 29 long-term drinking water advisories. Twenty-seven indigenous communities across Canada do not have access to clean drinking water.

I do not understand how a government that said this issue was so important and gave it a timeline to be resolved could have failed so poorly. It changed its goalpost and still has not met its goalpost. We live in a country that is blessed to be the home of 20% of the world's freshwater supply, yet the Liberal government continues to drag its feet on its fundamental obligation to indigenous communities.

While reflecting on this bill, I actually realized that I have had to live under some short-term water advisories, in my time, due to natural disasters. The first time was after the 2016 forest fire that tore through Fort McMurray. Much of the community was under a boil water advisory for about a month and a half. For some some people the advisory lasted a few months. Then again, in 2020, when we had massive floods in the Fort McMurray area, we were under a boil water advisory. While it was only for a month, it was a month when people had to think twice before they brushed their teeth or before they opened their mouth in the shower. That is what people have had to live with in indigenous communities across Canada for generations as a direct result of failures from successive governments.

The Neskantaga first nation, in Ontario, has had a boil water advisory since 1995. For almost 30 years, generations of children have had to grow up in that community not knowing what it was like to be able to open the tap and drink water. Those children have become adults who have taken that memory with them as they go forward. This is a failure of our country, Canada, where we have had Liberal governments, Conservative governments and a Liberal government again.

The government can blame everything it wants to on all the previous governments, but the Liberals have been in power for the last nine years, and there is a community that, for almost 30 years, has not had clean drinking water. The Liberals have sat on their hands, and to me, that is not acceptable. I was in elementary school when that community last had clean drinking water. We can do better, and we must do better. That community deserves it.

I sit here as a mom, and I cannot imagine the amount of extra work and stress a mother would have to go through, having to sterilize bottles simply so that she can feed her child because they happen to live under a boil water advisory. She cannot just wash her bottles in the sink. She has to instead boil the bottles to sterilize them to make sure that they are safe. Those extra steps have to be taken because the government has failed these people. It is about time that we stop and truly realize that this has been a failure. There have been a series of failures. We must do better. We can do better.

Indigenous people from across Canada share stories where they have had to go through all kinds of extra trials and tribulations as a direct result of boil water advisories. In doing research about this, I read stories about people like Rebecca Wynn, a grade school teacher who has to take medication before her showers to combat the extreme skin irritation she gets from the unsafe amount of chlorine that is injected into her town water supply. She has to take pills before she showers. That is something that no person should have to do, but they have been subjected to it because the government has failed to make sure that clean drinking water is available to them.

There are children who go to school and worry about whether they are going to be safe and whether it is safe to drink the water. I hope all parties can agree that this is something we can, must and should do. We cannot allow this bill to be delayed, like we have seen from the Liberal government up to this point.

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

It being 6:58 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 3, Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands, is deemed read a second time and referred to a committee.

Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Canada Labour Code

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

moved that Bill C-378, An Act amending the Canada Labour Code (complaints by former employees), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to my bill, Bill C‑378, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code in respect of former employees. It is designed to give former employees two years to file a complaint about workplace harassment or violence.

First, I am going to share a bit about my background so that members can have a better understanding of my interest in this bill as well as its legitimacy. The idea of introducing a bill that would give a former employee more time, namely two years, to file a harassment complaint under the Canada Labour Code came to me quite naturally. When I was the labour minister in Quebec's National Assembly, I revamped many of Quebec's labour standards. That was in 2018, under Bill 176.

Both then and now, Quebec's labour standards make no distinction between current and former employees. The standards used to allow current and former employees alike just three months to file a complaint. We felt that this time frame failed to make adequate allowance for the time it takes victims to bring a complaint. I therefore decided to take action and extend the time frame from three months to two years.

I soon transposed the thought process I had followed within the provincial government to the federal level. After leafing through the Canada Labour Code, I realized that, unlike Quebec's labour standards, the Canadian code did draw a distinction between former and current employees. At the federal level, for example, current employees who want to make harassment complaints are not held to any limitation period. Former employees, however, have three months. This time limit for former employees dates back to 2021, when Bill C‑65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, came into force.

Some might say that three months is better than nothing, but to me, that seems like far too short a time frame for a former employee to make a complaint. That is essentially what I want to focus on. Although still far too short, this three-month time frame nonetheless offers some recourse to former employees who had none prior to 2021. I want to highlight this progress, brought about by Bill C‑65. In our opinion, however, former employees deserve much more generous recourse, and I am looking forward to collaborating with all my colleagues in a non-partisan way to achieve this goal together so we can mitigate the problems Canadians face in their professional lives.

Quebec is among the most empathetic provinces, though others are close behind it, but it is still far ahead of the federal government. Let us take a moment to understand how this works elsewhere in Canada. As I said, Quebec does not make any distinction between current and former employees, and it already gives employees two years. Five other provinces do the same, but they give them one year. They are Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia gives former employees six months and has no time limit for current employees. The three other provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, do not provide former employees with any recourse. As for the territories, we did not find any data on their time frames for making a complaint.

Internationally, Canada's time frame is far less generous than those of many other countries, such as Belgium and France. In Belgium, former employees have five years to file a complaint, and the time frame can be suspended if the courts refer the matter back for internal handling. In France, the time frame is one year for contraventions punishable by fines. It increases to five years from the date of the last offence for more serious offences and can be increased to six years if the matter is taken up by a human rights tribunal or a criminal court.

In the United States, former employees have six months after the incident to file a complaint. That deadline can be extended to 10 months, if an employment discrimination law is applied by a local or government agency. In Australia, the deadline goes from six months to two years, and decision-makers are given a lot of discretion in that regard. In fact, the Australian Human Rights Commission imposes a six-month deadline but enables the president of the commission to hear complaints filed after the deadline, depending on the reasons for the delay. Again in Australia, complaints that fall under the Sex Discrimination Act can be filed up to two years after the date of the last incident.

I would like to remind the House that, here in Canada, employees have only three months to file a complaint. It is important to point out that, in some cases, complaints can be filed after the three-month deadline under Bill C‑65, which amended the Canada Labour Code in 2021. Part 2 of that legislation states the following, and I quote:

Extension

(5) On application by a former employee, the Head may, in the prescribed circumstances, extend the time period referred to in subsection (4).

The law thus allows for an extension of this three-month period, but that extension is conditional. Therefore, the burden is on the former employee to justify this application for an extension. This basically amounts to a burden of proof. They must file an application and justify it with circumstances such as trauma or a health problem. According to the application guide issued by the government, the person must provide documents such as a report from a social worker, an organization specializing in domestic violence, a police report, a doctor's note or even a solemn declaration made before a notary.

Clearly, the legislator anticipated that victims might find themselves in these kinds of circumstances and even provided for the possibility of granting more than the standard three months. In a way, the government is recognizing the potential difficulties victims may experience. Everyone can easily understand that asking for justification for a harassment complaint adds extra pressure.

The Canada Labour Code defines harassment and violence as follows:

...any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment.

A three-month time limit seems too short for such difficult experiences. Employees who were harassed may not always realize it right away. The road is a long one between experiencing harassment, realizing what happened, living through the accompanying trauma, and deciding to file a complaint. The trauma can surface long after the incident and even long after the termination of employment.

We had hoped to obtain some statistics on where things stand today. Unfortunately, and to our astonishment, this will be difficult. Apparently, the federal department responsible for compiling and publishing the annual results on workplace harassment and violence skipped some years. In fact, we have no summary for 2022 or 2023. The last report dates back to the 2021 annual report entitled “Taking action against harassment and violence in work places under Canadian federal jurisdiction”.

Honestly, it would have been extremely helpful to us and relevant to our debate today to know the number of complaints rejected because of the three-month deadline. We have no access to these data now because the necessary reports were not published and, more importantly, because the government did not think that compiling this information was important.

As I continued to look for that data, I turned to the office of the Minister of Labour and Seniors. A request was made, but we have not received a real answer to date.

Finally, I asked for the help of researchers at the Library of Parliament.

Here is what those experts told me on November 3, 2023, with regard to the reports that must be tabled by the government.

While employers are required to report the average time to complete the informal resolution process, this information was not made public in the 2021 annual report. Further, there is no requirement to collect data on the number of former employees who make complaints, nor on requests for extensions. Thus there are no statistics available on the requests for or approvals of extensions for reasons of trauma or health by former federally regulated employees.

Quite frankly, I would be extremely surprised if no complaints had been dismissed because they were submitted after the three-month deadline. I would be very surprised. Actually, I do not believe that at all. I therefore invite the government to be more rigorous and to divulge that information.

Cindy Viau, the director general of Quebec's Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail told me that what was done in Quebec under my leadership corrected a shortcoming that was caused by the short time frame. She told me why we absolutely need to extend this deadline. She said:

The increased time limit at the provincial level (to two years) clearly showed how important it is for victims to have more time to take action. In our experience in recent years, the two-year time limit that was adopted seems to be much more in line with the needs of victims. We still find that a majority of victims of harassment take medical leave following the events and that the end of their employment will come close to or near their medical leave. In that sense, people who turn to our organization still find it really difficult to report within such a short period of time, 90 days. One explanation shining a light on this particular need of victims of workplace harassment emerges when we look specifically at post-traumatic stress disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health aptly summarizes the reality of people who develop this mental disorder. Symptoms generally appear within three months of the event, and although some people may recover within six months of the onset of symptoms, many will take a year or longer to recover.

In addition, at the provincial level, we note from our experience that very few people [and this is interesting] who contact us find it difficult to initiate the complaint process within the two years set out in the Act respecting labour standards. Since the time limit was changed in 2018, we have only on very rare occasions had to explain to a victim that they had missed their deadline to file a complaint.

This change that I brought about at the provincial level is recognized and appreciated. I am asking that it be transposed to the context of the Canada Labour Code for former federally regulated employees.

I will close by saying that we are making policy. We are committed to making a difference. We want to improve people's lives. I think that taking this kind of action, passing this kind of legislation, can make a difference in people's lives. At night, when my day is done, I look at myself in the mirror and think to myself, I may have changed someone's life today. That is a good thing.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect the articulation that the member across the way has put on what I see as a fairly positive piece of legislation. Given her background as a former labour minister at the Province of Quebec, I would be interested in getting her perspective. I would ask for her best guesstimate.

Harassment takes many different forms in the workplace, and I suspect that, even in the province of Quebec, it gets under-reported. If she were to guess, in terms of the Quebec legislation, what percentage of those who are actually being harassed does she believe actually present themselves? It does take a great deal of courage for someone to come forward and say, “I was offended, and this is the reason, and this is how it happened, in the form of harassment.”

Does she have any sense of what kind of reporting back there is, based on the legislation, or is there a need for additional public information or advertising on the issue?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and his comments. I do indeed have the numbers. Unfortunately, I do not have them with me, but I would be happy to send my colleague the data he is looking for on complaints received, which are compiled by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, Quebec's labour board, which is well known in Quebec. The CNESST compiles all this information.

My colleague used the word “courage”, which is very important and stands out to me. As he said, it takes courage to make a complaint. In civil society, it takes courage for victims, in particular women, who are experiencing domestic violence, intimate partner violence or various other difficulties, to go to the police to give a statement and file a complaint.

It takes a lot of courage, but it also takes time. If the person does not have the time to do it, three months may go by without them realizing what has happened, but by then it is too bad, nothing can be done. It takes courage, but it takes time too.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very inspiring, especially when she talked about her time as a minister in Quebec City and said that she wants to put what she did there into a bill.

I found that inspiring because I know that when she was in Quebec City, she also voted in favour of carbon pricing.

She talked about courage earlier. I think she could have the courage to bring to this Parliament what she did in Quebec City when she helped set up a carbon exchange. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to put myself in the shoes of the victims who are listening to my colleague this evening as he tries to divert attention away from such an important bill, a bill that would give victims more time by extending the time limit from three months to two years. These victims hear him talk about carbon pricing while I am talking about giving victims more time.

He should be ashamed of his question and his efforts to divert—

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

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.