Senator Plett: You would speak on my behalf. And you will put —

Your Honour, I ask that Senator Lankin refrain from interrupting me while I am speaking. I think this is a serious issue. She may not.

Your Honour, I have the utmost respect for you personally. I have the utmost respect for the position you have been put in and that you should not have been put in. I understand why you are in this position, Your Honour. I understand the pressures that you have been put under. You and I will leave this chamber tonight as friends, respecting each other. I will be your friend when you retire, and I will wish you all the best. But today, Your Honour, I find it necessary that, pursuant to Rule 2-5(3), I do wish to appeal your ruling.

Senator Plett: Shame on you.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, last Thursday, any of you walking past Ottawa City Hall would have seen an impressive array of uniformed soldiers and athletes congregating in the main hall. It was at this event that the True Patriot Love foundation briefed key parties on their preparations for the 2025 Invictus Games that will be held in Vancouver and Whistler. Here, they highlighted the impact and legacy that the games will have on service members, veterans and their families from around the world.

The Invictus Games continue to inspire our veterans to reach new heights since their founding in 2014. They have demonstrated the important healing power of sport while also generating a wider understanding and respect for those who have served their country. Many of us in the chamber have had the honour of sitting down with our veterans to hear their stories and find out how so many have struggled upon returning home. Sometimes, you can see these injuries, but other times they are quite hidden.

Operational stress injuries like PTSD run high in our returning soldiers, and while we’ve made advances in how these can be treated, there is still so much work to do. Adaptive sport has been shown to be a powerful tool in the recovery process. It gets our injured veterans engaged and active. It gives them a goal to work for and allows them to once again don a uniform of the country they so proudly served.

The games are also uniquely focused on the family and friends of those who are competing. In 2015, I met hundreds of family members along with Invictus athletes. They stayed with the athletes, which is a very unique games model. The Invictus movement is about helping not just the service member in their recovery but also the family. I will recall fondly my time with the Prime Minister meeting our Invictus team in the rotunda of Centre Block way back in 2018 shortly before they boarded their Invictus flight to Australia.

The 2025 games in Vancouver and Whistler will be remarkable. This being Canada, it will be the first ever winter Invictus Games, opening up a number of new events for our veterans from around the world to train for. In their preparations, games organizers are also working alongside the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Lí’lwat Nations on whose traditional territories the games will be held. This furthers the recommendations laid out in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and ensures Indigenous protocols are respected in all aspects of the games.

Colleagues, the word “invictus” means “unconquered.” It embodies the fighting spirit of ill and injured service personnel and what these tenacious men and women can achieve post‑injury. I think we can all agree that those who compete have already overcome obstacles many of us will thankfully never face. Their bravery and valour in their service to our country have already marked them for excellence. It will be an honour for our country to host them in 2025, and I am certain everyone in this chamber will join me in wishing them the best in their training and preparation for these games.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Gold: On the point of order.

My apologies, colleagues. Members in the opposition have been heckling speakers — whether it’s me or any members — for years and interrupting us when we try to speak. In this very debate, Senator Plett impugned my integrity. He said that I misled this chamber, which was not true. He said that I moved this for my own personal motives — “self-serving motives” was the term I believe he used. That is speaking very much to motives. It saddens me to have to rise to even remind this chamber of what we all heard.

I think that what happened after the vote is a matter that is something that grown-up parliamentarians can possibly tolerate. I do not think it rises to intimidation, as you have characterized it. In that regard, Your Honour, I hope that you can dispose of this point of order quickly.

This is just yet one other attempt by the opposition to delay proceedings, to deny us as senators our democratic right to pronounce on a bill that has been before us for a very long time. It’s standing in the way of the Senate doing its job on behalf of Canadians. Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. You have misunderstood the point I was trying to make, so thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

The context within which we’re debating time allocations — the context is the deliberate campaign to kill this bill. This is not an example of speeches being adjourned or time being taken to prepare a speech in order to make sure the contribution is constructive for the advancement of the bill. I cited your leader’s characterization of you as a “Spartan warrior” to illustrate the point that it is no secret, certainly not to members in this chamber. It is one thing to oppose a bill. It is another thing to enlist this body in an effort to kill a bill that has the democratic approval of the majority of the House of Commons and to do so while pretending to be simply seeking to improve the bill.

With the greatest of respect, you may be happy with the title of “Spartan warrior.” I would rather see myself as a defender of democracy, and time allocation is an appropriate tool to be used to combat dilatory, obstructionist delay tactics for purely partisan reasons. It is an appropriate tool to give this Senate and the senators who are summoned here to do work on behalf of Canadians the ability to pronounce, first, on whether or not they agree with the government’s proposal to add six more hours of debate and then have the question called, and, ultimately, at the end of the day, the senators have the right to pronounce whether or not they will accept my proposal to accept the message from the other house.

We were brought here to do work on behalf of Canadians. We were brought here to exercise judgment, and in that regard this motion that I am urging you to support is one which will give us an opportunity to do the job for which we were summoned here, the privilege to serve Canadians and to stop a never-ending campaign, a campaign that would never end but for the invocation of time allocation for the benefit of Canadians. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Of course I have a question. I wouldn’t get up on my feet without having a question.

Senator Saint-Germain, at the end of the day, we’ve had many instances as a chamber where we put forward amendments, and the amendments put forward — that we supported as well — by your colleagues in your committee were watered-down amendments to protect user-generated content compared to the ones that were defeated.

So my question is: Why wouldn’t the Senate just insist one more time to the government to listen to those — as you pointed out — thousands of user-generated content creators and witnesses and tell the government that we insist on these reasonable amendments as proposed by the ISG senators and supported at committee by all of us and tell the government it is in the interest of the voices of reason in the country that they support those amendments?

Senator Plett: It has not — and I don’t say that as a shot at any senator here, but I cannot make an argument here without senators taking offence and saying, “Don Plett is attacking me.” I’m sorry, but that’s not what I’m doing.

I’m attacking the Liberal Party of Canada because I believe they are the worst thing for this country; I believe that. I respect your beliefs — respect mine. I believe this Prime Minister is the very worst prime minister that this country has ever had, and that includes his dad — and he and I didn’t get along. But at least when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Prime Minister, I felt that we had an adult in charge of our country.

I say that here, and that is somehow unparliamentary, and we’re being bad people because we express our opinions — because we’re political.

Senator Gold wants to have the power to do this, but he didn’t have the power before. Now, our Speaker has rewritten the Rules to give him the power to cut off debate. Again, it doesn’t matter how you feel about it. Two hours ago, you did not have the right to do what you can now because of the Rules — one individual rewrote the Rules, whether you like that or not. You can shake your head all you want; that is simply the fact of the matter.

The Rules are clear. When it says “recognized parties,” Senator Gold, it doesn’t matter; that’s not a big word to change — recognized parties, or recognized groups.

I think Senator Dalphond somehow interpreted recognized groups having the same power and the same rights as recognized parties because the leaders of the recognized groups received a raise in pay. And Senator Gold receives $92,000 for being the Leader of the Government. I don’t know where that plays into it, but the fact of the matter is that the other recognized groups do not have the same power that the opposition has or the same power that the government has. That was intentional.

Senator Harder was very much instrumental in opening up that Parliament of Canada Act, and when Minister LeBlanc was here today, many of us had conversations with the minister at that point. He made commitments to me; I won’t share them here, but he made commitments to me. He said, “This is what we want. This is as far as we want the chamber to go.” They recognized four groups. They didn’t want to go beyond that; they made it clear. Senator Saint-Germain will attest to that, as will Senator Tannas, I’m sure, and Senator Cordy. They will attest to this being what Minister LeBlanc said: “We don’t want to go beyond that.”

If they wanted you to have the power that you have now gotten through the back door — you couldn’t get through the front door — they would have given it to you. They would have dealt with it.

Today, Senator Lankin said, “Why send it to the Rules Committee? That’s where things go to die” — and we can’t have a committee that works on consensus. Why? We had committees that worked on consensus when we had the two most partisan parties in Canada, and they were the only parties here. We dealt on consensus. Everything that we did at the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — Senator Housakos, you were there, and Senator Furey was there — was done by consensus. That was with two political parties. Now, all of a sudden, when we have a non-partisan chamber, we can’t deal on consensus anymore.

Colleagues, think about that for a while when you say that you are making this chamber less partisan — because you’re not.

I’m admitting to what I am: I’m a Conservative. I’m proud to be a Conservative. I’m proud to have conservative values. If you are proud to have liberal values, then stand up and say that. Don’t tell us that you are independent and you will vote your own way, and then you vote — 96% of the time — in favour of the government.

Senator Gold said that we had a deal, or at least he indicated a deal. In my previous life, I did a lot of negotiating. I negotiated on behalf of municipalities, and I negotiated on behalf of different organizations. When there was a negotiation, there were two sides, at least, talking.

The fact of the matter is, colleagues, that Senator Gold did say, without question on last Monday, that he would have liked to have had this bill passed by last Thursday. There’s no question — no denial there.

Typically, Senator Gold asks Senator Saint-Germain first regarding what she’s planning to put up for speakers. He then asks me. He then typically goes to either Senator Tannas or Senator Cordy and asks for their opinions — he did that. I will not share their opinions; I will only share mine. I said, “Senator Gold, we don’t have a motion for this. You’re asking me to tell you how many speakers we’re going to have, and I don’t have a motion. I would like that, and then I’ll be prepared to debate this and discuss it.” I don’t think anyone can deny that’s the conversation. He didn’t know why.

One of the senators said, “It will be a two-line motion. It doesn’t take a long time.” And I said, “You’re right. How long would it take you to write that?” It would take my staff about 10 minutes. This government has had two weeks, and they haven’t written this two-line motion. Why?

Then, I have to raise my suspicions a bit: Why aren’t they giving us a motion? It is a very simple thing. So I said, “Tomorrow, when we see that motion” — because I was told we would have it before midnight. I didn’t have it before midnight. My chief of staff did, but I was in bed when he got it. God love him, he didn’t wake me; he waited until the next day to give me the motion.

That day, we debated that motion. Senator Tannas offered an amendment. The next day, the government accepted that amendment. Talks were going on. Senator Gold called me about that amendment and whether or not we would support it. I suggested to him to at least wait until tomorrow — and we probably will, but I would like to wait until tomorrow because I would like to contemplate because I haven’t talked to my caucus. I’m not wanting to put words in your mouth, Senator Gold. He said, “Okay, let me think about that.” Then he called back and he said, “No, we’re planning on going ahead today.” I said, “Okay, Senator Gold, but we can’t support that today, so we will take the adjournment and we will likely pass it the next day,” which we did. We passed it the next day. We didn’t have a vote; we agreed to it. Senator Gold said, “Don, I think you and I should talk further this week.”

Honourable senators, I say this honestly. I did not believe that he was still thinking he was getting a bill on Thursday. I said, “Yes, we should. I would be happy to talk.” I said maybe we would talk before our leaders’ meeting next Monday. He said, “Well, I think we should talk earlier. I said, “Okay, maybe we can talk Thursday.” But, I said, “Senator Gold, I hope you understand that we’re not ready to call question on this on Thursday.” I’ll be the first one to admit that.

There’s no negotiation there, colleagues. We haven’t even started debate. We have not even started debate in this chamber, and he wants, in one day, for me to agree to something that has taken two-and-a-half or three years’ time? How on earth the Speaker could make a decision today on that is beyond me because Senator Gold gave us less than 30 hours to deal with a bill that had been around for three years? Is this how rulings are supposed to be done?

Again, it doesn’t matter, honourable senators, what side of the political spectrum we’re on. We have an obligation to Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada speaks for 7 million-plus Canadians. We won the popular vote in the last two elections. We have a duty — an honour-bound duty — to speak on behalf of those 7 million Canadians, and there will be more in the next election. We have a duty, and for us to be considered as people who are filibustering and as people who are not cooperating in the Senate because we are defending Conservative values, I really find that disconcerting.

I’ve been asked lately — and I know that many of you would encourage that I take the advice of some people and say, “Don, why are you beating yourself over the head? Why don’t you retire from the Senate?” I know there are probably those who would be happy to give me a going away present if I did that, but I say there are still more good days than bad. I still have hope. I said that to a couple that was in my office today. I still believe that I am speaking on behalf of many Canadians, and I want to continue to support those Canadians. I want to speak on behalf of those Canadians.

Again, this is not about whether or not we support time allocation. I have never said, Senator Gold, that we don’t. I fully expected, Senator Gold, that if we did not move this bill forward in the next week or two — and you and I have had those discussions, Senator Gold. You and I had those discussions just a few months ago when you offered. You said, “Don, if you need some help, I can probably help you.” There was no question that we were anticipating that we’ll have a limited amount of time to debate this bill in this chamber before you would at least try time allocation.

Would we have done the same thing we are doing today? Yes, we probably would have because I still believe you don’t have the right. By the rules, you don’t have the right on a number of issues, which I pointed out earlier. We would have still made that argument. But you, Senator Gold, would have given us an opportunity — you would have given Canadians an opportunity that you are taking away from them, not the opposition. We are here ready to debate this.

Yes, I presented an amendment the other day. I presented a very reasonable amendment, and that amendment was to simply go back to the government one time and say that we expect you to accept our amendment. That was the amendment. There was nothing untoward about that amendment. The fact of the matter is we all know procedures, and we needed to make sure that we wouldn’t be — Senator Lankin and I go back to a private member’s bill a few years ago where she got the better of me. Full marks. I hold no grudges.

Do we have to make sure that won’t happen? Yes. Is that in any way an intention to filibuster this for three months? No. We knew full well, Senator Gold, that there would come a time when you would probably — unless we allowed this to go forward — do what you did tonight, and we would have hoped that we would have gotten what we believe was the right ruling. You obviously believe you got the right ruling, and that’s fine. We’ll do another battle on another day.

However, for you to do this after six hours of debate — six hours, not on the very first day of debate — to refuse to talk to the Leader of the Opposition, refuse to come to the Leader of the Opposition. When this happens — I talk to the House leader in the other place all the time. When Mark Holland plans on doing time allocation, he lets Andrew Scheer know, as well as the other House leaders. What do you do? I come across the floor on Thursday, right in front of your desk and I said to you, “Senator Gold, should we have a meeting?” Now is not the time. Half an hour later, your notice of motion comes forward, and you suggest that we aren’t to be trusted? That we aren’t the honourable people? I consider that very questionable.

I asked you at that time if we should meet. Whether that bill passed on Thursday or whether that bill passes today, this Thursday, next Tuesday or even next Thursday, what difference does that make? Unless the Prime Minister is running scared and he wants to get out of Ottawa for a while, and he says, “Senator Gold, Senator Furey, you had better help me out here. We can’t be in Ottawa.” You’re shaking your head. We’ll see whether there is any relevance to that at all because other than that, Senator Gold, what difference on a bill that’s been here for three years does another week make? I can’t understand that.

You could have come to me, Senator Gold, at any point and said, “Don, if you don’t give me this bill by this time, I’m going to invoke time allocation.” That would have been the professional and honourable thing to do. I would have accepted that. I would have stood here and I probably would have torn my shirt like I am now and say that you don’t have the right to do that, but at least that would have been the proper way to do that instead of backdooring. That doesn’t go away.

You suggest I broke a deal. No, the government broke a deal. You know very well — and I won’t raise it — about the deal that you broke to me one time, Senator Gold. I would be very careful how often you tell me I broke a deal before I start talking about that one because that one was a whole lot more personal than this one. You don’t want that brought up on the Senate floor, Senator Gold. I would be careful in how often you tell me that I have broken a deal. I broke no deal. The government broke a deal. The government did not do their consultations. So I said, Senator Gold, the government did not own up, did not do what they were supposed to do and did not do what they said they had done, so we can’t go forward with this. It had nothing to do with Pierre Poilievre’s videos or Senator Housakos’s videos. It had to do with standing up for Canadians.

This is censorship gold on a censorship bill.

Let me end off on this, Senator Gold, and you can turn around and say the same to me: You will reap what you sow. In the next election, you will reap what you sow. This Senate will again become a chamber of sober second thought where people will respect each other, and that will happen after the next election, whether you like it or not. People will again respect each other here, whether they are on one side of the government or the other. We will have respect, even if we get angry like this over the course of the evening. I will fly Friday morning with a couple of my Manitoba colleagues, and we will rub shoulders and tell each other how much we love each other on the weekend, and then on Monday or Tuesday we’ll come back here and do what we’re doing here today because that, colleagues, is the way this chamber should work. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Honourable senators, I’m proud to join tourism operators in marking Tourism Week. Representatives from the industry are in Ottawa this week, highlighting the contributions tourism makes to our economy, communities and country and what it will have to offer in the future. It’s no exaggeration to say that Canada is powered by tourism. Tourism has created jobs in every province and territory, employing 1 out of 10 workers. Pre-pandemic, the sector created 748,000 direct jobs and supported 2 million more. But the benefits aren’t just economic. From coast to coast to coast, tourism sustains our communities and allows our Canadian culture to thrive as we share our traditions with visitors from across the country and around the world.

However, the sector has had a very challenging few years and is not out of the woods yet. If we want tourism to thrive, we need to address labour shortages while also investing in our tourism assets so that Canada can continue to offer the cutting-edge, one‑of-a-kind experiences we’ve become known for worldwide. We also need to support success stories like Indigenous tourism, which is in high demand among domestic and international visitors and is a powerful vehicle for Indigenous economic development and cultural revitalization. As well, we need to promote Canada as a destination at home and abroad and incentivize industry to host their conferences and events here.

I learned yesterday at our event that the Shaw Centre in Ottawa has been rated the number one conference centre in the world, which was so interesting. I didn’t have that tidbit of information.

We were happy to see support for tourism in the most recent federal budget, and we’re looking forward to seeing the government’s Federal Tourism Growth Strategy. Canada’s attractions are world-class, and the beauty of our natural wonders is unparalleled, as is the welcoming spirit of our people. I encourage everyone to join me in standing with our tourism operators as they present Canada to the world.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Raymond Mong and Christina Chong. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Woo.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Dean take a question?

Senator Dean: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we welcome today the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, to ask questions relating to his ministerial responsibilities.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, senators do not need to stand. Questions are limited to one minute and responses to one-and-a-half minutes. The reading clerk will stand 10 seconds before the expiry of these times. Question Period will last one hour.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities: Your Honour, through you, obviously to Senator Plett asking the question, I hope you will indulge me a few moments at what may be the last time I have the privilege of being invited to your chamber with you as presiding officer. Senator Furey and I have been friends for over 30 years, and I’m only 55 years old. Senator Furey has been a political mentor for me and a good friend, and our families have become friends. Your Honour, I wanted to acknowledge your remarkable service to Canada as you prepare to leave this chamber and to say that it has been a privilege to work with you and see the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian preside over one of Canada’s parliamentary institutions. I wish you in your retirement, sir, nothing but success and good health and happiness.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

He has been hard at work. I have had a number of exchanges with officials supporting him, with counsel supporting him. He is meeting with me and cabinet colleagues in the coming days. I know he has been meeting with senior officials. As the Prime Minister indicated transparently at the time he was selected to do this important work, Canadians will see from him in the coming weeks a report on the question of whether further public or other inquiries would be helpful in reassuring Canadians about our democratic institutions. This will be an ongoing effort, and we expect him to be transparent and open with Canadians over the coming weeks and months.

Finally, I hope senators have taken note that his terms of reference were deliberately broad and inclusive to allow the Right Honourable David Johnston to follow the evidence, to go where he thinks it is important to go in order to provide the best advice to the government and to Canadians.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today in this chamber to talk about the importance of Earth Day, which was celebrated on April 22. Over 50 years have passed since the first Earth Day, and yet, the nine planetary boundaries that are necessary to our survival are under unprecedented threat. We are already existing outside the safe operating space for four of those boundaries, including the loss of biodiversity and climate change.

We cannot afford to delay taking action. Canada, like the rest of the world, must take bold action to deal with the climate crisis. As senators, we have a responsibility to act, not just for ourselves but also for future generations.

We need to adopt a new economic approach that is fair, sustainable and equitable. We need to transition to a low-carbon future, while ensuring that no one is left behind. That means that we need to invest in clean and resilient technologies and infrastructure and ensure a just transition for workers and communities.

[English]

Financial institutions have a catalyzing role to play in providing the necessary funding for this transition. We need a financial sector that is aligned with the Paris Agreement goals and that integrates climate impacts in decision-making processes. This will help us be more competitive with other jurisdictions, such as Europe and the United States, that have already modernized their regulatory frameworks.

Even the multilateral banks such as the World Bank, the Inter‑American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank are already aligning their activities with the Paris Agreement.

We must also recognize the importance of protecting nature, biodiversity and the ecosystems that sustain life on earth and represent more than 80% of our GDP. This means preserving and restoring lands, reducing pollution and protecting oceans and forests.

Colleagues, the climate crisis is the greatest challenge of our time and will require an unprecedented transformation. It will take us out of our comfort zone, yes, but it is also an opportunity for us to come together and build a better future. Let us use this Earth Day to reaffirm our commitment to protecting our planet and to working together towards a sustainable future for us all.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Welcome, Minister LeBlanc.

Minister, the Prime Minister’s made-up Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference has been silent since being named to this post on March 15.

This is, of course, just what the Prime Minister wanted by naming an old family friend, neighbour and Trudeau Foundation member to the position. The terms of reference for the made-up Special Rapporteur say that he is “to provide reports on a rolling basis.” Minister, think about all the serious revelations about Beijing’s interference in our country that have been reported in the last six weeks. It is obvious that a public inquiry is required, yet we have heard nothing from the Special Rapporteur.

Minister, what communication has taken place between the Special Rapporteur and your government since March 15? Have any reports or recommendations been brought forward? Has he interviewed any ministers or their staff?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.

You’re absolutely right. The COVID health crisis resulted in all levels of government working together in a way that had never happened before. It was in the best interests of Canadians.

I believe that it was a successful example of Canadian federalism. At one point, I was attending the weekly teleconferences with the premiers and Prime Minister Trudeau.

You’re also absolutely right that the federal government became the financier for all sorts of programs that, in the past, would probably have been well and truly under provincial jurisdiction. I see this in my work as an MP. Canadians increasingly see — and not entirely correctly — the federal government as a court of appeal for provincial decisions that are within their constitutional jurisdiction. I worry about returning to the proper way of doing things and obviously finding a way to work collaboratively with my provincial and territorial counterparts.

I recognize, however, that it is harder to go back. Canadians expect us to work together, including on child care, on infrastructure projects and on climate change. There’s a greater appetite to work together.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities: Thank you, Senator Cormier, for your question. I also want to commend the work you do for francophone minorities in the country, especially our dear fellow Acadians, as part of your service here in the upper chamber. I fully share your concern over the representation of minority groups here in the Senate.

I believe we are on the eve of making appointments and I hope you will be very pleased with the decisions the Prime Minister is making. I don’t want to elaborate, of course. I learned in politics that it is best not to speak for your boss and to allow his appointments to speak for themselves. Based on my discussions with him, he is aware of the constitutional principles you mentioned.

As far as the geography of our province is concerned, we could also discuss that at length. I think that linguistic balance is important. We might find different ways of adjusting the geography, the geographic specificity. Ultimately, we will see what happens in the Prime Minister’s appointments. I understand the urgency to take action. I’m not saying that we should fall behind, but the linguistic issue is important and we might disagree slightly on the geography, but we will see what happens when the appointments are announced.

[English]