44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 25, 2021 10:00AM
- Nov/25/21 10:39:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to me that the government House leader continues to expound upon these rules and regulations when the question remains, does he really know what they are?
I want to go back to the fact that on air he says that anybody who is double vaccinated and has COVID can go back to work. That is nonsensical. My question then remains, will the government House leader retract his statements and realize that he has no idea what the rules really are?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:38:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my hon. colleagues across the aisle continue to talk about science. I am not sure how many scientists there are over there, but that is a whole other matter.
It is important that we look at this. We have never done this before, besides last year. How many people really know that it works? Is it effective? Have we really studied it? We have not. I think it a shame that after 150-odd years of Parliament in Canada we allow the opposite side to control the destiny of democracy in Canada without any study at all, and to say that this is a virtual Parliament that is going to go on forever.
When are we going to look at the science that all the Liberals continue to speak about?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:53:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really want to congratulate my Liberal colleagues on how much concern they have over the people who are not immunized. It is fascinating, but in my mind, as a scientist, I really wonder how, if someone were unvaccinated and got COVID, it would make the lives of all these people who are vaccinated doubly so much worse. I fail to understand that. Perhaps someone could please explain that to me. It really makes no sense to me whatsoever.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 4:57:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend and colleague from West Nova on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.
I am sure over the course of my speech I will also echo some of the comments and sentiments from my colleagues over the past couple of days. However, they are very important and will be echoed.
It is an immense pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons and address my fellow hon. colleagues in the 44th Parliament of Canada in person. We are following public health measures and the science and representing our constituents in person.
It is an indescribable feeling to be standing here making my maiden speech. I would be remiss not to thank the constituents of Cumberland—Colchester for entrusting me to be their representative in this House. I thank my friends, volunteers and my family, especially my wife Deborah, my children Samantha, Allison and Zac, who have all supported me in this incredible journey.
My dear friends, I have had the opportunity to live my version of the Canadian dream. What do I mean by that? I have been able to work hard to secure an education, to find meaningful employment and to help make my community a better place. I realize this is not the version of the Canadian dream for all. However, being an elected member of Parliament allows all of us to help Canadians live their version of the Canadian dream.
For my maiden speech, I should also be talking about my background. As a young man, I grew up in a trailer park in rural New Brunswick. I joined the Canadian Armed Forces, attended medical school and had a career as a family physician for the past 26 years.
My life continues to be about serving my country, having a strong work ethic and bringing forth my constituents' triumphs and tribulations to this very floor. Sadly, the Prime Minister and my Liberal colleagues prefer to avoid these difficult questions from my Conservative and Bloc colleagues on pressing issues of inflation, continuous scandals and vaccine hesitancy of Canadians, and they hide behind a hybrid parliament. The best way to hold a government to account is to be in person and to respect the work that occurs in this institution.
The COVID pandemic began very inauspiciously for me on March 13, as my learned colleague said, in Truro, Nova Scotia. I entered an unprepared hospital, region, province, and quite frankly, an unprepared country. We have been toiling in this situation as health care workers and as all Canadians for 21 months.
In the medical world, COVID-19 was a brand new foe. Sadly, as we were so unprepared, many of us on the front lines thought we faced certain death as patients began entering our hospital on March 18, 2020. All Canadians have suffered greatly during this pandemic. We have all suffered in different ways: physically, mentally and financially.
Frontline health care workers worked overtime, and continue to do so. A regular work week as a physician was 80 hours or more. Families were separated by distance and the inability to feel the embrace of a grandchild. Seniors living in long-term care longed to be with their families, but were separated by a pane of glass.
Children were forced to go to school via Zoom and they were deprived of their friendships and their participation in sporting activities. The tourism sector was decimated and continues to remain so. We have missed birthdays, weddings, bar mitzvahs, baptisms, holiday gatherings, faith services and, sadly, funerals. We have been mandated, locked down and tested. We have been ordered, locked out and excluded.
Finally, as a nation, a great nation, it is now time to begin to emerge from this pandemic. It is time for Canada, and indeed this Parliament, to be the voice of Canada and to show our fearless leadership as we sit in person in the House of Commons.
As my hon. colleague mentioned, I have been privileged to see first-hand the enthusiasm of members meeting in person for the first time in a very long time, and hearing stories of friendships missed and open discourse thwarted by a virtual Parliament. I have heard about the mental and physical health of interpreters and the failure of technology. There is an overall sense that virtual Parliament does not work.
Once again, as I mentioned, there is no scientific data to say how great it works, even though many colleagues will say how wonderful it is. Legislatures around the world have been closed to the public; numbers of representatives have been reduced; and in extreme cases, such as in Hungary, the Prime Minister is ruling without consulting members of Parliament.
As a family doctor at heart, I am a social scientist, and we as human beings are social beings. There is a great need to interact with others in person. Indeed, as my colleague mentioned, we have seen the usual handshake replaced by other forms of contact, such as fist bumps and elbow taps.
Setting aside the incalculable effects of the lack of socialization, we are not here to socialize. We are here to work, to make laws, to consider significant issues and to lead our great country. We need to be a reflection of Canadians and also to give them hope. They have borne the burden of mandates and lockdowns, and now, as it is possible to emerge, we need to lead the way. If hon. members of the government do not intend to return to in-person work and intend to stay locked down alone at home in their slippers, the work does not get done and the benefit of vaccines is lost.
Around the world, people are envious of our position, not just the incredible opportunity afforded to us as Canadians, but as individuals who have the opportunity to return to in-person work. We know that our Liberal colleagues have attended in-person social events. We have seen many on TV and social media. Just this week, the House gathered safely to elect a Speaker and to debate the Speech from the Throne.
I have another analogy: What if all of our health care workers decided to work only virtually? I have tried it and quite frankly it stinks. Should we ask Canadians to draw their own blood, listen to their own heart sounds, insert their own chest tubes or insert their own intubation tube? I think not. Then why, we might want to ask, should we all not return to work here in the House of Commons?
We are not asking parliamentarians to take any greater risk than we ask of other Canadians who report to work every day. My learned colleague mentioned the farmers, fisher-people and other people who work with their hands. They need to go to work. Are some of us more equal than others?
It is clear to me that not being here in person allows the government to continue its reckless platform of overspending and not addressing real crises, such as housing and the floods in B.C., without having to be held accountable. Real-world issues such as the high cost of living, the censorship of the Internet and an inadequate number of workers need to be addressed, debated and solved. Instead of addressing these critical issues, the Liberal government would rather waste time questioning the validity of the House administration and questioning the integrity of medical professionals.
Canada has the highest vaccination rate in the G7. The parliamentary precinct has enforced public safety measures to ensure our members' safety. Why must we add rules to rules? Canadians are returning to work, businesses are reopening and Parliament Hill should be no exception to this reality. Millions of Canadians are unable to participate in a hybrid workspace, so why should the government believe it can receive special treatment and accommodations? Do people think that we are exempt from the same rules that everyday Canadians follow?
I realize that I am a newly elected member; however, I do not believe that the good people of Cumberland—Colchester have sent me to Ottawa so that I could sit behind a screen alone in my home or my office. They sent me here so that I would be here in the middle of the action where I can properly hold the government to account. That is what I was elected for, and the best way to do that is in person.
Canada was once an economic powerhouse, a revered nation of peacemakers, a friend to struggling nations and a beacon of hope in an otherwise dark world. This, my friends, is the Canadian dream. I implore my fellow members to do what is best for all Canadians, and that is to vote against the hybrid Parliament.
1477 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 5:08:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the main arguments that need to be made here is one of facts, science and trust. It is very clear that there is no science around having a hybrid parliament, how well it functions, what the outcomes are and how it is different from an in-person parliament. We know that over the last 150-odd years in Canada, an in-person parliament has worked. Therefore, when we have no certainty that a hybrid parliament works, I think on this side of the House there is a lack of trust that our good friends will not want to continue this indefinitely and indeed forever.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 5:10:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues that I have to address. My scientific colleague has a study, as we might say in science, of “n=1”. He has one person in the study, himself. That is quite fascinating. Those studies are very good. We call them useless.
That being said, the other thing is good intentions. There are a lot of songs about good intentions and where that road is going to take us. We may all have good intentions to show up. We may all have good intentions to exercise every day, to eat better and to be better people. Clearly, the majority of us fail in those things over and over again. The concern is that it is very easy to take the easy road, stay home with our fuzzy slippers on, use a virtual parliament and say that there is something way more important to do than come here to do our job.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 5:12:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the expectation for in-person Parliament is that people are here, and that is the standard that has been set over the last 150-odd years. That is what is important. We want people to be here and we want them to be held accountable. That is the job of the official opposition, as I know it, and that is what I have been elected to stand here and do in the House of Commons.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 7:23:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been fascinating to listen to this today and to hear my colleagues continue to complain about the personal health information of my colleagues on this side of the House. I think it is deplorable. The Personal Health Information Protection Act is there to protect us.
What if, as a physician, I stood at the doorway and started asking members how many people had heart disease, diabetes or even worse things such as erectile dysfunction or sexually transmitted illnesses? Would that be appropriate? I do not think so.
Why do my colleagues on the other side of the floor continue to think it is appropriate to ask about personal health information?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
