44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 24, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/24/22 5:02:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate and also to be speaking after the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. As Quebeckers and other francophones just heard, the member from Alberta, who represents one of the most oil rich ridings in the country, speaks impeccable French.
It is late in the day, and we are gathered here to ask the Government of Canada to do what all the other Canadian governments have done and that is to lift the COVID-19 mandates for Canadians. When I say all the other Canadian governments, I am not referring to previous governments, but to the current governments of the 10 Canadian provinces. Ours is a big and beautiful country. We have British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. Ten out of ten provinces have decided to lift COVID-19 mandates.
Some provinces, like Saskatchewan, lifted them some time ago. Others, such as Quebec, are moving in that direction and will lift all measures by April 15. It is coming. Other provinces also have plans. Thus, all 10 provinces are on the same page. It is now time to lift vaccine mandates. All governments agree except for the central, federal NDP-Liberal government. That is unfortunate.
These people keep saying that we need to listen to and follow the science. I would say that they were following the political science when they called an election at the beginning of the fourth wave of the pandemic. They ignored everything that Dr. Tam had said on the Wednesday and then called an election on the Sunday. What happened to those people who were crowing about the principle of science? Why did they then call an election? What principle was behind that idea? They were operating on the principle that public servants absolutely had to be vaccinated. There was not a single scientific study proving that this was necessary. The same thing happened after the election, when the mandate was extended to truckers. There was no scientific evidence for this.
However, 10 public health officials in the 10 provinces have each decided that the restrictions could be lifted in their province. All 10 of them did. Not nine, not eight, not six out of 10, but every single one of them, from coast to coast. The NDP‑Liberal government refuses to recognize what the provinces are doing and, most importantly, refuses to do what all of the provinces have done. It is unfortunate.
I want to be clear. Canadians have suffered a lot over the past two years. We have all suffered as a result of COVID‑19. Some people lost family members or loved ones, and our thoughts are with them. Others have faced serious mental health challenges. We all know someone who experienced setbacks, challenges and upheaval when confronted with isolation.
Other people missed out on some of the best experiences life has to offer. I will not go into detail, but suffice it to say I experienced the joy of becoming a grandparent during COVID‑19 not once but twice. I got to see my granddaughters, but my parents did not get to see them as much as they would have liked. My parents are 97 and 98 years old, and they did not get to see their great-granddaughters, who will soon be 23 months old and seven weeks old, respectively, as much as they wanted. COVID‑19 caused all Canadian families to suffer, some a lot and some less so, but we have all had to live with COVID‑19.
When the time comes to lift restrictions, obviously that has to be informed by science. That is why the provinces did it. That is why I do not understand why this federal Liberal-NDP government is refusing to do what scientists in 10 out of 10 provinces agreed to do on the basis of science.
Let me be clear. I am a Conservative and a Canadian, and I am proud of that. My party was the first to raise the issue of COVID in January 2020. I remember the hon. member for Edmonton Riverbend was the first to raise the issue here in the House, in January two years ago. Ours was the first party to raise the issue of restricting the border to address this. We were the first. We were the first to ask for a vaccination system and to provide vaccines to Canadians. We were the first to talk about rapid tests.
As a Conservative, I am very proud to fight for that. As a Conservative, I am very proud to have followed all the rules.
I am a Conservative, and I got not one, not two but three doses. As a Canadian, I am proud to have my vaccine passport with me at all times. Did I enjoy having to show it every time? Of course not, but we got through it.
I was also very proud to wear a mask, which I still wear today, by the way. There is nothing to be ashamed of; on the contrary. I am very proud to wash my hands 25 times a day. I was already doing that anyway, but that is another story. Finally, I am very proud, in a way, to respect social distancing.
We all learned these words during the pandemic. However, the time has come to move on. That is where we are right now.
I mentioned earlier that the current government has made several big mistakes, such as calling an election in the middle of a pandemic, forcing public servants to be vaccinated without scientific evidence and other things like that.
However, what this government has lacked the most is respect. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine to correct this government's lack of respect, especially the lack of respect shown by the head of state.
The Prime Minister is our Prime Minister especially when we have to address a crisis like the one we have had in the last two years. The first responsibility of our Prime Minister is to let people work together, to unite us and to face and address the situation. However, what did the Prime Minister do? He fought Canadians, he divided Canadians and he wedged Canadians. That is exactly what the Prime Minister should never do, but that is exactly what he has done in the last two years.
That is why we are quite saddened to see that, two years into the pandemic, while leaders around the world and in our 10 provinces have decided to set aside the health measures, the federal government is alone in refusing to follow the science and the recommendations.
It was sad today to see our party put more than 20 question to the Minister of Health, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem. He is the member for Québec, which makes him one of my neighbours, as is the member for Louis-Hébert.
I have to say that over the past few months, I have appreciated the observations and comments of my colleague from Louis-Hébert. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be having much influence on his neighbour, the member for Québec. He should have paid more attention to the comments of the member for Louis-Hébert, who said that the Prime Minister had unfortunately decided to divide Canadians and call an election on the principle of mandatory vaccination.
What was the response we got today from the Minister of Health, whom I respect and hold in high regard?
The minister came out with all sorts of numbers, as the deputy leader of the official opposition and member for Mégantic—L'Érable said. The minister cited an unending slew of numbers.
Speaking of numbers, let us talk about the number 10. In Canada, 10 out of 10 provinces believe the same thing: It is time to lift the health measures. Why is the Minister of Health not listening? Why does he not realize what is happening?
People are saying that the situation is not the same in Europe and they are quite right. Every country has its own reality and its own challenges. Every country is faced with the fact that people can travel from one country to another and spread COVID-19 to some extent.
However, Canada has 10 provinces, 10 health ministers and 10 public health officers. Ten governments have decided to lift restrictions and mandates. We hope that the current federal government will follow the lead of the 10 Canadian provinces, do the right thing and let Canadians lead a better life in the current situation.
1472 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
