44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 24, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/24/22 10:00:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 10:08:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition from constituents of Winnipeg North who passionately believe that parliamentarians need to be strong advocates for seniors. The petition highlights issues related to long-term care and mental health and the importance of support programs like the GIS and OAS. They are calling on the Prime Minister, cabinet and all members of the House to be constant and steady advocates for seniors in Canada.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 10:15:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 10:33:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a difficult time with the motion that has been proposed by the Conservative Party. What I have found is that this is a party that has been absolutely inconsistent on this issue. It depends on which member of the Conservative caucus one actually talks to. That will determine whether they are progressive or conservative in their approach. The only party that has been consistent from day one is the Liberals: the Prime Minister and the government of Canada have said that we are going to listen to science, listen to health experts and follow the advice that we are being given by professionals. The Conservatives would not even listen to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who suggested that the Conservative caucus should all be vaccinated. They are still not all vaccinated.
I wonder this. Could the member inform the House what percentage of the Conservative caucus today is actually vaccinated?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 11:36:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. The resolution itself is very clear. It says:
the House call on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates
I wonder if the member can provide a simple answer as to whether or not the Bloc supports the resolution.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:21:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair. As you would know and no doubt attest, with regard to the province of Quebec, toward the end of November or beginning of December, no one would have anticipated that the province of Quebec would have been implementing a curfew in the month of January because of omicron.
I think it is really important that we do not lose sight of the fact that we cannot just wish the pandemic away. There is a responsibility. Things can change and, as we have seen with the omicron variant, they can change quite quickly and rapidly.
I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we listen to what health care experts have to say.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:34:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when we read the motion and listen to the members from the Conservative Party, it is abundantly clear they have used their political science to make the determination that all federal mandates need to end today. I do not know if they are feeling somewhat obligated because of their presence at the blockade protest, but I suggest it is highly irresponsible.
My question for the member is this: Does she not recognize she cannot just wish the pandemic away, that there is still a need? If we look at what is happening in some of our provinces, there is great concern regarding other variants. I wonder if the member is prepared to say today that we no longer have a pandemic. Would she not at least try to keep an open mind as to what the health experts are telling us?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:54:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Uxbridge.
It is truly amazing to listen to some of the Conservatives, especially my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton. In responding to a question from my colleague in regard to travelling, he tried to give the false impression that the Conservative Party, at no point in time, wanted to limit travelling outside of Canada or coming into Canada.
That is the problem with the Conservative Party. It is that there is that extreme right element, and then there are those who want to be more on the progressive side of the Conservative Party. The member who made that statement is the one who was standing out there when we had the blockade, preaching, at least through the media, in support of the blockade.
As for misinformation, we have what he stated today. We were all here inside the chamber when the Conservative Party was asking the federal government to put in more restrictions on travel. He does not have to take my word for it. I know he can read. He can read Hansard, and he will see that this is in fact a fact.
I would like to take a look at what the Conservative Party is actually saying today through its opposition motion. It is in essence a proclamation to all Canadians from the Conservative Party in Canada that they should not worry and that mandates are no longer necessary. They are not saying to give due diligence. They are not saying to review science or consult with health care professionals. They are not saying that at all—
276 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:58:05 p.m.
- Watch
—and I have read the motion. The motion says, “the House call on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates”. To my friend who posed the question, the real question is whether he has read the motion.
The Conservative Party collectively, inside the House, stands alone once again. It is not just the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc members agreeing; we are all saying “no” to this motion because it is a stupid motion. The Conservatives cannot click their heels and wish an end to the pandemic. Members should keep in mind that there was a blockade that cost the economy millions of dollars, and potentially billions. There were a number of Conservatives who were out there encouraging—
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:58:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our rules, and in particular if we look at Beauchesne's, are very clear. It would be most inappropriate if I were to say that the member is stupid, but it is okay to make a generalization about a political statement and classify it as being stupid. There is nothing wrong with saying something, especially if it is about the real situation, and in this case it is, and I hope that the point of order will not take away from my time.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 12:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think if we were to canvass our constituents, taking a look at how the Conservative Party has brought forward this motion today, they would suggest that it has been greatly influenced by the far right. I really and truly believe that. Even the right-wing guru Jason Kenney from the province of Alberta, the one many Conservatives look up to, would not, I think, support this particular motion. It is quite possible that I could be wrong, but what I do know is that Jason Kenney was very critical of elected officials talking with individuals who were participating in the illegal blockades.
There is a reason I raise that. What were those individuals asking for? They were asking for an end to vaccines. The illegal blockades and the protests that were taking place were demanding an end to mandates, and today we have the Conservative Party echoing, at least in part, what the blockaders and the protesters were saying just weeks ago. That is, in fact, the case.
Let us take a look at what has actually happened. Right from day one, when the pandemic came to Canada and went around the world, the government responded by putting in a litany of programs and supports to be there for Canadians as we got a better understanding of the cost of the pandemic from a health perspective. We invested a great deal of resources, whether it was civil servants or financial resources, and had a team Canada approach in dealing with the many different stakeholders out there and in coming up with ways to minimize the damage of the pandemic. That was led by looking at science and listening to what health experts had to say.
Members should have listened to what the Minister of Health said in his opening remarks on this today. He talked about the easing of some restrictions on April 1 for pretesting when crossing the border. That is based on what we are being informed through the numbers.
We had a dramatic increase that occurred through the omicron variant, and we were not the only ones to put in place certain aspects to protect Canadians. We saw different provincial governments take action too. The Province of Quebec implemented a curfew. My home province put in more lockdown measures. Who would have anticipated this back in November and December?
The federal government provided somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30-plus million rapid tests to the provinces and territories in the month of December alone last year, which was more than a number of months prior when there was no demand for rapid tests. We had to put into place stockpiles in order to accommodate changes because the pandemic is not gone. We still need to be sensitive to what might be around the corner. As an increase in the demand for rapid tests came, in the month of January, through procurement, we received approximately 140 million additional rapid tests, in good part circulated to where the demand was: to our provinces and territories and, as I understand, even to businesses and other stakeholders.
At least on this side of the House, we recognize that the pandemic is not something people can just wish away. There is a responsibility for all of us to make decisions based on facts and science and to continue to listen to health experts. When members of the opposition talk about Dr. Tam, one might get the impression that she is saying to lift mandates. That is not the case. Our chief medical officer is saying that we need to be diligent. We need to have reviews and we are having those reviews. That is the responsible thing to do.
As for the Minister of Health, if we read his comments from earlier, we can see there is a plan in place that has some fluidity to it because circumstances change. We on this side of the House recognize that, and we wish the Conservative Party would do likewise.
669 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 1:07:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my constituents, as I have, that as a government, from day one we have been listening to and following the advice of health experts, realizing that the very best thing we can do for Canadians is work with Canadians in getting through this pandemic. That is one of the reasons that, ultimately, Canada has fared so well in ensuring we have the vaccine supply and the supports in place to be there for workers, seniors, people with a disability, students, just name it. We have been there in a very real and tangible way because we care about the people of Canada and we are not going to put politics ahead of that caring.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 1:09:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I understand that opposition members will often ask for plans. I was in opposition at one point too and asked for plans. That kind of implies that there is no plan, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is a plan. We have ministries with very competent civil servants who work every day to ensure that we are listening to what health experts and science are saying and what Canadians are saying. We are ultimately making decisions based on that.
It is not that on April 1 we are saying we do not have to have the pretest. That was decided a little while ago in anticipation, because the science and the numbers were allowing us to make that adjustment. In essence, when members say there is no plan, I would counter it by saying that we do have a plan and we see that plan in action every day.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 1:10:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very valid concern and it is something I tried to emphasize. There is a lot of fluidity with regard to the pandemic, and there are certain sectors of our communities where we do need to ensure that extra attention is given. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister and many of us have recognized that there are ways in which we can learn from the pandemic to enhance programs going forward. The best example that comes to my mind is the issue of long-term care. Let us understand it and look at ways we can improve it through, for example, national standards for long-term care.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:16:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the motion, the Conservative Party is saying it wants to stop the mandates completely, as in it would have no mandates effective today.
Can the member tell the House whether he believes that the political science the Conservative Party is using by making that statement is right and fair in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians?
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:57:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the motion states, “the House call on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates”. I asked one of the member's colleagues who the medical experts were who were saying the federal government should lift every mandate effective immediately. The member came back by saying that it was Dr. Tam.
Dr. Tam is Canada's public health officer. Dr. Tam indicated that the federal government was examining all of the vaccine mandates when she stated, “I think the federal government has taken a very precautionary, thoughtful approach. They're looking at a phased approach of removing some of these policies. I know these policies are being reviewed and re-examined as we speak.” Not all provinces have ended mandates. It is false to make that statement.
Why do the Conservatives stand alone in the House demanding that the mandates end today? Who are the health experts they are listening to?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 6:02:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 6:25:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of enthusiasm that I request a recorded vote.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity for the Bloc party to raise this particular issue, albeit through an individual member this time. The first time was with an opposition day motion. I hope to be able to speak a bit more on this. I wonder if the member could explain why he feels so passionately about having an opposition day motion, knowing that we were having this particular debate today and that the government was bringing forward legislation.
He made reference to the Constitution. It seems to me he wants to talk about the Constitution. Why is the Constitution so important, from his perspective?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in looking at this particular piece of legislation, one can only ask why the Bloc has chosen to bring it forward knowing full well the government had intentions of bringing in legislation. I would attempt to answer that question by indicating that, from what I have witnessed over the years of the participation of Bloc members, their interest primarily seems to be that of playing a destructive force for Canada as a nation. I can already see some hints of that in some of the comments being made.
I say “a destructive force,” because I am a very proud Canadian. I recognize the wonders that Canada has to offer in all of its regions, and I am very proud of that. I have made reference in the past to my own ancestral heritage in the province of Quebec, to the number of generations that lived in the province of Quebec and to the expansion into the prairie provinces and so forth, as well as to how Canada as a nation is bilingual and to how important it is to recognize the province of Quebec, its uniqueness and the role it plays in society.
I know we currently have 35 incredible members of Parliament who advocate for the province of Quebec, along with other national interests, on a daily basis. In fact, earlier today we got a sense of that in the passionate delivery of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. My former boss, when he was the government House leader, would often talk with a great deal of passion about the people of Quebec and how important the French dynamic was to our country. I also go to my colleague for Mount Royal and other colleagues I have had who have spoken so eloquently about the important role Quebec plays not only here in Canada, but internationally.
I like to think that the legislation we brought in today, Bill C-14, deals with the concerns my colleagues have been raising within the government. It would ensure that the province of Quebec would never lose a seat in the future. I see that as a very strong positive, as we have made changes to the Constitution in the past and we have seen guarantees in the past.
Once again, through advocacy, we now see a very strong commitment to the number of 78 seats well into the future, and that would not limit it to 78. That would establish a floor. There are many in this chamber, including me, who believe that the province of Quebec will continue to grow. Ultimately, its population could even dictate a larger number than 78, so we are not saying it has to be 78 into the future. It would have the potential to go beyond that.
Why not recognize the value of Bill C-14? What is the need for Bill C-246, which is being proposed? The member already knows that members on the government side are committed to it, because we had the debate earlier this month, which the member even made reference to, where Liberal members from all regions of our country came forward saying that we need to ensure Quebec has that minimum number of seats going forward.
If somehow the Bloc was able to convince a majority of the people in this chamber to do what they are asking for, it would entail a constitutional change that would require the support of 50% of the population and seven of the 10 provinces in order to be approved.
I have been around for constitutional debates. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for votes related to the Meech Lake accord and for the Charlottetown accord. I do not believe for a moment that the people of Canada, whether they are citizens of Quebec or citizens of my home province of Manitoba, want the House of Commons to be dealing with constitutional matters of this nature, which is what this bill is actually proposing. It would require approval under the 7/50 formula.
There are so many other issues that are out there today, yet the Bloc want to insist on having a constitutional change that would invoke the 7/50 formula. I would hazard a guess that, even if just the constituents of the members that are proposing this were canvassed, they might find that their constituents would not necessarily support a constitutional debate on this issue alone.
I do not say that lightly. That is what I truly believe. When I have canvassed constituents in the past, a number of years ago, on the issue of electoral reform, and the whole issue of numbers, I was very clearly told that this was not something that they want.
As a parliamentarian, we often have a sense of what the pulse of our community is like. I would challenge any member to clearly demonstrate where the political will is matched by the enthusiasm of their constituents for constitutional debates at this point in time, as that is what would be required under the legislation that is being proposed.
We could talk about issues. My friends in the Bloc often talk, for example, about health care and how important it is that the federal government be at the table when it comes to a wide variety of issues in regard to health care. The federal government is at the table. We have the Canada Health Act, which ensures that no matter where Canadians live or in whatever region, they will have a certain quality of health care delivered, based on the five fundamental principles of our Canada Health Act.
Given the pandemic, and the response we received from Canadians in regard to issues such as long-term care, the costs of medication and the issue of mental health, I believe that no matter where one lives in Canada, the debates and concerns of those issues alone would supersede and exceed the need for what is being suggested by members of the Bloc party today.
It is not to be insensitive, in recognizing the importance of the 78 seats. As I said, I personally voted in favour of that earlier this month. I know, as I said earlier, that not only the 35 members of the Liberal caucus who represent Quebec ridings, but also the entire Liberal caucus recognizes the importance of Quebec having those 78 seats, with the potential, as I explained earlier, for growth.
I really believe, and I would encourage other members of other political parties to believe, that there really is no need to even see this bill go to committee because, quite frankly, we would hope that the government's bill, Bill C-14, will make it to committee, at which point in time there will be even more opportunities for the public and stakeholders to provide direct input.
1145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
