Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2025

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337 and 338 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, we have thousands upon thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of young Canadians who have done exactly what they were asked to do. They went to school. They studied hard. They gave their best effort on the promise that, at the end of all that, they would be able to get a job and start a career. What they are experiencing right now is a broken promise by their government. They are experiencing a job market that is lacking in jobs and opportunities. In fact, many are feeling overwhelmingly anxious right now when they think about what their future holds.

It is heartbreaking to see and hear, and many of us in the House see and hear that from our constituents on a regular basis. For me, in Bowmanville—Oshawa North, I hear that very often from students at Durham College and Ontario Tech who have worked very hard and gotten good grades. They really should be feeling excited about what awaits them, yet they are anxious every single day.

We know the unemployment crisis facing young people, where we have 460,000-plus Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 looking for work, has exacerbated many of the issues young people are already facing in this country. Boys and young men in particular are disproportionately shouldering a burden for very many social and cultural problems right now, including opioid overdoses, suicides and homelessness. They are victims of violent crime and dropping out of high school. The unemployment crisis makes all of those things even worse.

I myself was once a young man struggling in the school system, labelled illiterate by the Ontario public schools for failing a literacy test in grade 10. I know for a fact that if not for the chance to work, I might have never finished high school and I might not be standing here right now. For years, I found work in restaurants, at Red Lobster and other places, working as a dishwasher or a line cook. It was not glamorous at all. Scraping seafood off pots and pans is not the stuff people dream about doing one day, but the skills I learned, the personal attributes I gained from working at night made up for all the things I was not able to learn and do during the day in a classroom.

When we see these statistics about young people not having jobs, it is more than just not having a paycheque every week or every two weeks; it is also a sign of young people being robbed of the personal development and growth that is necessary for the future leaders of our country. The research is very clear on this: when one works as a young person, they learn things they might not learn anywhere else in their life. They learn responsibility, time management and conflict resolution. They learn how to be responsible for other people, how to work as a team, social skills and personal development that is essential, personal development that, when it is lacking, becomes a problem for all of us, because we all depend on the young people of today to be leaders for our country in the future.

I have been worried for quite some time that young people would internalize the bad economy created as a result of 10 years of Liberal policy, and they would blame themselves for the lack of opportunity in front of them. I have worried for a long time that young people would think they had made mistakes or think they had made the wrong choices and that is why they are struggling in the economy right now. This is one of the reasons I have been visiting university and college campuses across Ontario and soon the rest of the country. It is precisely to hear them out and hear what is going on, what is weighing on their hearts and their minds, but also to deliver a very clear message: It is not their fault.

In fact, the economy they see before them right now is a result of a series of bad choices and bad policies made by people in positions of power. Liberal politicians, corporate bigwigs on Bay Street and bureaucrats here in Ottawa have consistently put the interests of the next generation of leaders in this country on the back burner to serve all sorts of, frankly, bizarre ideological agendas. Young people need to know this, because we do not want young people to feel discouraged and demoralized.

We want them to know that better choices are possible, a better future is possible and, in fact, how we get to that better future, in many ways, can depend on their being involved in our democracy and our political process and their gaining the ability to be leaders in this country to make decisions for our institutions that would be forward-thinking and not backward-looking.

I believe that when we talk about the choices made by people in positions of power, it is helpful to be specific. Here today, we have heard about some of the policies that have been enacted by the government for the last decade that have held back our economy from the necessary growth required for young people to have jobs and careers. We have heard about the anti-resource policies, high taxes and heavy red tape. We have heard also about the fact that the labour market has been completely misaligned, not just at the post-secondary level but also when it comes to immigration policy.

When I visit university and college campuses, I hear that young Canadians across this country know that small tinkering at the edges of the status quo is far from enough to create the changes necessary for young people to be optimistic and hopeful about their future. Small programs and small policy changes by a government that is pretending right now that it is different from what this country has had for the last decade are simply not going to get the job done. Young people know that real, serious, substantive changes are required and there may be no better example of that than immigration policy.

We saw here in this very chamber, just a few hours ago, the Liberal government once again double down on irresponsible and unsustainable immigration policy, creating a new system of unlimited chain migration; doubling down on the very policies the Liberals pretend they want to fix. When the time comes to exercise their power to fix the system they have broken, they continually fail and demonstrate that they have learned nothing from 10 years of breaking an immigration system that was once heralded as the envy of countries around the world. This very day, just hours ago, the Liberals once again voted for Liberal immigration policies, not knowing and not being able to answer to the people of this country how many new people would be entering this country as a result of this legislation.

Young people know very clearly, because they have eyes and they have ears, that things have changed dramatically in this country and they feel it every time they apply for a job. They can see that we have too many people, not enough houses; too many people, not enough jobs; and too many people, not enough public services. They are being asked to turn a blind eye to the reality they see in front of them every day and pretend that the government has their best interests in mind, which is simply not true.

I have encountered, on these college and university campuses, people from across the political spectrum, some who voted for us in the last election, some who did not; some who vote regularly and some who have never voted before. However, the common thread among the students with whom I have spoken, a thread that I wish were visible here in the House of Commons, is an understanding that change is required and the status quo simply is not working. Young people are bearing the brunt of failed policy for over a decade and they are asking for something new. They are asking for something different. When we talk about youth employment, job losses and what is happening to the next generation of leaders in this country, we are talking about the need for change. I mean real change; I do not mean changing the leader of a party and pretending that it is a new government.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at youth unemployment and go back to 2009 when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around in the Conservative caucus under Stephen Harper, we would see that the rate of youth unemployment was at 15.2%. Then, going back to 2013, it was 13.7%. Why is that important to recognize? It is important because Stephen Harper and the current leader announced a policy in January 2014 that said they wanted to increase the number of international students to 450,000-plus. I wonder if the member would say that Stephen was Harper wrong to do so.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for demonstrating precisely my point earlier, which is that young people across this country are hungry for a political movement and a government that are forward-looking, yet we see quite clearly from the Liberals that they are still looking at the past. They are unwilling to accept any responsibility for 10 years of mismanaging this country and its economy. Instead, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is still occupying their psyche. It is disturbing. The years the member is talking about are times when I was a student working at Red Lobster, yet we are trying to talk about how we plan for the future of young people today.

I look forward to seeing the member at the national forum to end Liberal racism, on November 17.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent.

Something I would like to point out from the member for Winnipeg North's comments is that he talked about 2008 and 2009 and its all being the Conservatives' fault that there was youth unemployment at that time. He never mentions the economic conditions that were going on at that time; I believe it was the worst recession since the 1930s, whereas the only excuse for having high youth unemployment now is failed Liberal policy. That is the only reason, and they cannot take accountability for it.

I wonder if my colleague from Bowmanville—Oshawa North has something to add to that discussion.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is precisely right. He has observed the same thing as I and many people across our country have, which is that the Liberals refuse to take any responsibility for their own policies. They have been in government for over a decade, yet when they speak, one would think they had showed up just yesterday. They take no responsibility. They cannot even have any degree of humility to apologize to the young people in this country for what they have done to their opportunities and for what they have done to the economy in which young people are now entering the labour market.

I would love to see some humility, and I know I am not the only one. Many Canadians would love to see some humility from the Liberals. Unfortunately it is not their strong suit.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North's speech was incredible. He and I had a similar experience, starting out working in restaurants. I would rather be scraping crusted lobster off plates than listening to some of the talking points from the member for Winnipeg North.

The reason I bring this up is that my hon. colleague was one of the first people in the chamber to identify how harmful the temporary foreign worker program has become for Canadian youth, and I was hoping he could expand on that and on how we can fix the problem after 10 years of the Liberals' creating it.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is this: There are jobs that traditionally and historically were an entry point for young people to join our economy, to earn their first paycheque, to learn their skills, to find a place where they belong and, from there, to grow in all sorts of different directions. The temporary foreign worker program, over the course of decades, became a way to deny young people jobs they ordinarily would have, to pay people a cheaper wage. That is the reality, and anyone who goes to a Tim Hortons across this country will see the evidence of it themselves.

It is important for the economy to be tied to the young people in this country. It is important for Canada's economy to see its health as tied to the health of our young people, but when large corporations can bypass our young people and bring in people from elsewhere to occupy entry-level positions, it drives down the wages of young people and divorces our economy from young people.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important issue of youth unemployment. To begin, I would like to say to my Conservative colleague who just finished his speech that I agree with him on one of the major points he mentioned: changing leaders obviously does not mean that we have a new government. We agree on that. This is my nod to him in response to his remarks.

We have to be careful when we address this issue. The issue that was raised at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is good and important, but there is no simple or populist solution to this issue. The committee is alarmed by the data on youth employment, which is at a 25-year low. A very low employment rate means that unemployment is very high. In fact, the current unemployment rate is the highest it has been since 2010. The youth unemployment rate reached 14.7%, while the rate for the entire active population was 7.1% in September 2025.

I would like to remind the House that the official unemployment rate always underestimates the actual number of unemployed people. I hope that my fellow MPs are already aware of that but, if not, I am happy to share that information with them. The unemployment rate primarily takes into account people who are registered with EI and who are looking for work. It does not take into account those who are discouraged by, on the sidelines of or disheartened with a job market where the deck is stacked against them. The actual unemployment rate is therefore probably higher than the numbers show.

Of course, it all depends on the age of the young people, but the younger they are, the more likely they are to be in precarious, low-skilled jobs, often in retail or something similar. These are often jobs that people do not want to keep in the long term and end up leaving. There is a relatively normal turnover rate that needs to be taken into account.

At the same time, there is another important phenomenon: The cost of living has been very high for the past two years, food inflation is rampant and wages are not keeping pace. Imagine what it is like to earn minimum wage. These jobs are unattractive. This is also one of the reasons why young people may be refusing to take them. There are a lot of factors involved, and it is quite complex. At the same time, job offers for young people have declined over the past few summers. It is important to look into this further.

However, we should avoid engaging in petty populism by saying, for example, that the temporary foreign worker program must be scrapped and claiming that this will magically fix the youth unemployment rate. This would indeed be a magic formula. Those are nice, empty slogans to throw around but they do nothing. I am reminded of the Conservatives' last catchy slogan: Axe the carbon tax, it will lower the cost of food. People were yelling at each other over it.

However, the carbon tax no longer exists in Canada outside Quebec. Did grocery prices go down? Have grocery prices in Canada outside Quebec gone up less than grocery prices in Quebec? In Quebec, we continue to be responsible, and we still have a price on pollution because we want to see long-term improvement. The answer is no. Grocery prices have not gone down. If axing the tax had really had the impact that the Conservatives have been talking about for months and months, Quebec would have scrapped its tax, too; we are not stupid. We do not want people to fall on hard times. We are capable of taking meaningful action by adopting a long-term vision and acting intelligently.

Let us be statesmen rather than politicians. Does everyone know the difference between the two? A farmer told me this story. I told him I would remember his example because I liked it so much, and I have been striving to be a statesman ever since. Politicians make decisions based on the next election, whereas statesmen make all their decisions based on and informed by the next generation. That is our job—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles on a point of order.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to include female politicians as well, not just male politicians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is debate.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé may continue his speech.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague.

I find her point of order a little strange, since I am talking about myself. I try to be a statesman. I am willing to try to be a stateswoman, but I think that would be difficult. I want to reassure my colleague that I am one of the most feminist members of this Parliament, I assure her, and I always defend women in politics. I will even share a bit of my background with my colleague. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was the president of the Bloc Québécois, and I worked hard to ensure that the Bloc had the highest percentage of female candidates in every election. Unless I am mistaken, I believe we succeeded again in the last election campaign. She can rest reassured on that point.

I was talking about the fact that the farmer and I were chatting. I try not to be a politician, but a statesman. As for women, they should strive to be stateswomen rather than politicians. Decisions must be made with the next generation in mind. That is our job.

I am sorry, I am not trying to be rude, but to say that abolishing the temporary foreign worker program will solve youth unemployment is a simplistic argument. Can we really tell the agricultural community that we are abolishing the foreign worker program tomorrow morning? Come on.

In fact, it should be even be extended, because the agri-food sector has a problem. We all know the difference: Agri-food processes what agriculture produces. The agri-food sector also has a tremendous need for foreign workers. Generally speaking, these jobs do not appeal to Quebeckers or Canadians. According to the latest polls that I have seen, 7% of Quebeckers and Canadians say they might consider a career in the agri-food industry someday. When people say they “might” consider that as a career “someday”, it means that not everyone in that 7% is likely to actually do it. There are some key sectors like those.

In recent weeks, I met with representatives of a local welding business. They need foreign workers. Locally, there is a severe shortage of welders, of skilled workers.

To score political points, our fine government is going to make quick decisions, such as expecting all sectors other than agriculture and agri-food to drop from 20% foreign workers to 10% overnight. I am not saying that I oppose reducing the number of foreign workers in certain sectors. In some sectors, reducing it is a good thing, and it could go down to 10%.

The message that our critic and the Bloc Québécois want to convey is the need to be careful about how it is done. There should be an adjustment period. We asked for a grandfather clause and a buffer period, and the Quebec government asked for the same thing. It has been about a year, but we have yet to get a response from the federal government. Perhaps it is time to take action.

Local businesses have a pool of 18% or 16% foreign workers. When I meet with them, they tell me they have no problem reducing that percentage to 10%, that they would still be able to operate and that it would be fine. However, they want some time.

Some people have three-year permits that are about to expire, and they have been here for six years. They have learned French, they are doing really well and their children are going to school. However, there are new workers who arrived before the Liberal government's policy change, who have been here for six months or a year, and who have already said that they are not happy, that they do not want to stay and that they want to leave.

However, companies are forced to let their good, skilled employees go because the government has not given them a grace period.

It seems to me that it is not that complicated to be smart about this and act with restraint. The proportion of foreign workers in most sectors needs to come back down to 10%, and there is agreement on that. However, this cannot happen in a year. In some cases, it might be appropriate to tell companies that they have three years to bring their percentage of foreign workers down to 20%. During those three years, that percentage could not increase; it would have to be reduced. This would allow those companies to keep their best employees.

In private enterprise, one of the scarcest commodities, apart from time and money, is skilled labour. Training a worker who can be trusted and who can be delegated responsibilities, giving them the skills they need to keep the business running, is invaluable. Currently, business owners are heartbroken at having to let such workers go.

It is important to act judiciously. That is what I am saying. The Leader of the Opposition has said that young people today are “generation screwed”. He says that many foreign workers are flooding the labour market, depriving young Canadians of jobs. However, I do not know any business owner who hires foreign workers when they have access to local labour. I have not met any. Business owners do not do that because it costs them more. There is a ton of paperwork to fill out. Business owners are responsible for those workers and that often includes providing them with housing, or else actively helping them find housing. Most of these employers actually have parallel programs. They pay for French language courses themselves. They have support programs to help with the process of becoming a permanent resident.

Enough with the easy shortcuts. Youth unemployment cannot be entirely blamed on the use of foreign workers. We need to settle this issue. I hope I have made that clear. However, there are challenges. People need to be properly trained, and they need to be informed about the job market. I mentioned agri-food earlier. Not many people want to work in that sector, but there is not a lot of information available either. We also need to ask ourselves whether training programs are accessible to young people.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard from Stéphane Pageau, who is a labour and public affairs adviser with the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. He presented his analysis of youth unemployment rates. I think he raised some good points, and I will share them here.

First, he pointed out that the unemployment rate has indeed gone up and that the rise is more pronounced among young men than young women, it seems. That is what the statistics are saying. He wondered if it is because of school dropout rates. Then he provided some explanations. The first factor he talked about was the economic context. With the economic slowdown, there is no doubt that the unemployment rate is going up in all categories. He also mentioned that, in Quebec, the youth unemployment rate is lower than in the rest of Canada. That is good news.

He also talked about the advent of artificial intelligence, which is limiting the number of job opportunities in certain retail and customer service roles. It might be worth considering that aspect as well. There is also a regional breakdown that needs to be taken into account. When the government introduces unilateral measures such as reducing the number of foreign workers everywhere, it does so without analyzing the various economic sectors. It did not analyze regional differences. Perhaps no one thought about the entrepreneurs who keep our economy running on a daily basis. They deserve respect.

It is important not to play politics with issues like this. There is one thing that could help our young people find suitable employment. It is not enough to simply tell a young person that there is a job available and that they should apply for it. They may not like that job. We have economic regulation tools at our disposal, including EI. What is the purpose of EI? If an engineer loses their job and it takes them a while to find another one, thanks to EI, they will not be forced to become a taxi driver, food delivery driver or anything else. Those are noble professions. That is not the issue here. However, those jobs do not match his skill level. I call that a waste of human resources. A guy who can work as an engineer is forced to do something else because there is no coverage for his adjustment period.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

It is not just guys.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, may I continue my speech without being interrupted every five seconds? The situation is that someone has taken a dislike to me for no good reason.

As I was saying, EI allows people to work in jobs that match their qualifications. If someone is an engineer or a dentist, they will be more productive for society if they work in that field. However, during the buffer period between two jobs, that person needs to have time to get their bearings, apply for jobs, go to interviews and, a few months later, if they have not found anything suitable in their area, they might start sending out resumés in a neighbouring area. They might move to another region, who knows. However, if that person is unable to pay for groceries, they will work anywhere. Again, whatever job they take will be a noble one, but it will not match their qualifications. At that point, society as a whole loses out. We have been promised EI reform for more than 10 years.

Another group that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard from was the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi. That was in October. That group submitted a brief with some very interesting recommendations for improving the EI system, including access to EI. As we know, nearly half the workers who contribute to EI will not have access to it if they lose their job. That is shocking.

I have already said this in the House, but I challenge anyone to shop around for home insurance and find an agent who says that, if their house burned down, the company would not pay out half the time. As far as I am concerned, I would not choose that company. I would keep shopping around. If I pay for insurance, I want to be covered. Workers, however, cannot change their insurance. It is a federal program. It needs to be improved, because this is a flagrant injustice. What is more, we know where the EI surpluses go. They go into the consolidated fund. It is like a misappropriation of funds. Let us call a spade a spade. I do not think it is right.

The group recommended that the government “establish an eligibility threshold of 350 hours or 13 weeks” and “abolish total exclusions from EI”. As we know, if someone quits their job, they are not eligible. Perhaps that could be changed, and they could be eligible for a shorter period of time, depending on the context. Sometimes people leave a job because of harassment or something like that. There may be good reasons. Once again, we need to be smart and measured.

Another recommendation was to “provide EI protection regardless of maternity, parental or paternity benefits received”. That problem is appalling. Quebec has a parental insurance plan, and I know of a number of women who went on maternity leave, went back to work and then lost their jobs a few weeks or months later. Then they were told that they had not accumulated enough hours over the past year to qualify for EI benefits. Maternity leave is supposed to be considered employment. It seems to me that this would be easy to fix. That is a serious injustice. There is something wrong with this system.

Next, there was talk of improving the system, granting 50 weeks of benefits regardless of hours worked and trying to address EI's notorious spring gap. That is important, too. The Bloc Québécois also introduced a bill to give people with serious illnesses the right to 50 weeks of benefits, but that has not yet been embraced by the federal government. That is not acceptable either. Another recommendation was to set the benefit rate at a minimum of 70%, with the calculation based the best 12 weeks with a minimum threshold of $500, because depending on the job, incomes can sometimes be very low, which amounts to having no employment insurance at all and putting people in poverty.

Beyond all that, I urge that we, as parliamentarians, try to come up with long-term solutions for the next generation, that we try to understand the impacts and, for goodness' sake, that we avoid spouting easy rhetoric just for the sake of good Internet sound bites. I could be doing that too, but that is not why I am here. The people who elected me to this place expect me to do my job intelligently and to represent the men and women of my riding properly and decently, setting aside my personal interests to advance their interests and for the betterment of our society. As a sovereignist party, I think we set an example here. Some people accuse us of being separatists and the like. While our mandate is to stand up for Quebec's interests until independence comes, we take our role seriously, without harming the rest of Canada. I think that deserves more appreciation than it seems to get. That is what I wanted to say. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention, which I would describe as very eloquent. I also want to commend the intelligence of his remarks. On that, I cannot be against virtue.

I agree with him on several of the points he raised. I completely agree on the fact that there is no correlation between youth unemployment and the temporary foreign worker program.

Far from wishing to contradict my colleague, I would like to add something. Would he and his political party agree that a program alone is not enough and that we need to work on a systemic approach, as he himself said? Would he be willing to support us if we decided to offer training programs to qualified individuals in order to help businesses?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Bourassa for his kind words and his intelligent question.

We are always willing to collaborate when it comes to implementing good programs. Right now we are talking about training, and this is an area where nuance is important, because it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. A good way to achieve this is by increasing transfers, not imposing conditions. The same can be said of health care.

The federal government has a role to play, and it can play that role very well if it does so without overstepping the Constitution, which unfortunately is not always the case.

I guarantee that we are here to work. When a bill is presented, we do not ask ourselves whether we like the person speaking or not, but rather whether the bill is good for Quebec. If it is good for Quebec, we vote in favour of it. If it is not good, we will show goodwill and try to amend it to make it better.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. It was very interesting.

I noticed that in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, there was full employment among young people. Now, the further we get into 2025 and almost 2026, the fewer jobs there are for young people. The youth unemployment rate is on the rise. Did he notice the same thing? In other words, did he notice a decline in youth employment? Does he have any solutions? Has the government perhaps failed in its duty to young people in Canada?