So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 122 - Nov/1/22

Mar/8/23 6:21:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill S‑209, an act respecting pandemic observance day—

19 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 95 - Jun/23/22

Nov/1/22 11:37:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the government's intention to keep using ArriveCAN given all the access problems users have had, all the bugs in the software and the fact that travellers will likely stop using it. What does the member think of the government's intention to keep using this app?

59 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

Jun/23/22 10:55:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not heard very many arguments from the government House leader so far. What I do not understand is why this government is in such a rush to decide about a hybrid Parliament right now, when health measures have been completely relaxed for public transit, precisely where there could be the most problems. I do not understand why we need to decide on this today, when there has been no spike in cases. I think that we could make this decision when the House resumes, but apparently that is not possible. It seems to be urgent that we decide today on whether to continue with a hybrid Parliament, when that is not the type of work we should be doing here. This is the people's House. I do not understand. I would like to hear the reasons behind this. I have still not heard any from the government House leader, apart from the fact that he wants to accommodate his team.

165 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

May/19/22 12:27:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his speech. I serve with him on the Standing Committee on Health, and what he said about the science is absolutely correct. It is clear that vaccination still protects against developing the serious form of the disease, which is why we must protect our health care systems. That is the main thing. However, does he not think that the government should eventually, for the sake of the tourism industry, present a progressive plan to lift the measures, even though we know full well that we are not in the endemic phase since the planet is not vaccinated?

111 words

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

May/19/22 12:11:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since I have been in the House, I have often seen the Conservatives add something to the wording of their motion that makes it so that that only they will vote in favour of it, since it includes inaccurate information. It says here that, “Canada's international allies have moved to lift COVID-19 restrictions”, when one of the worst infection hot spots on the planet has been our neighbour to the south, with whom we share one of the longest borders in the world and who has not lifted restrictions at all. I would like to hear my colleague's comments about that being added to the motion when the Conservatives are looking for everyone's support.

123 words

Context: House Hansard - 57 - Apr/25/22

May/19/22 10:54:28 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We agree with several aspects of his analysis. However, when talking about a pandemic that caused many deaths, we must be responsible. Both sides must avoid politicizing—in the least noble sense of the word—a debate like this one. I sat with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Health. Earlier, he said that we should go back to the way things were before the pandemic, but I would like to qualify that statement. We know that the world's population is far from fully vaccinated. As long as vaccination rates are low and people are travelling, there is the potential for a variant that could completely compromise the benefits of vaccines, particularly in terms of the possibility of developing a severe form of the illness. I am sure my colleague agrees with me on this. In any case, I hope he will mention that. The tourism industry's GDP has dropped 50%. This is serious. We have been asking, but the government has yet to table a plan to lift the health measures to give some predictability to the tourism and airline industries and to the travelling public. How does my colleague explain that?

210 words

Context: House Hansard - 57 - Apr/25/22

Apr/25/22 11:24:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the second point reads that “we need to make sure the conditions of work reflect the care standards our seniors deserve”. Everyone agrees that we have a collective responsibility to care for our seniors as individuals. However, the conditions of work in long-term care facilities and seniors' residences do not fall under federal jurisdiction. That is the first problem, and I will come back to it. The third point states that “the management of long-term care facilities is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction”. Here, they are basically admitting that it is none of their business. At least they are acknowledging it. The motion continues by saying, “we share the goal of ensuring safer, better care for seniors”. Well done. I am very happy to see that the federal government has the same goal as Quebec and the provinces, that is, to ensure better quality care for seniors. That is effectively what Quebec wants. However, health care is not under federal jurisdiction. If the federal government truly wishes to help the provinces and Quebec, it should convene a summit to discuss a sustainable increase in health care funding and health transfers, as requested unanimously by Quebec and the provinces, which are united on this. I will come back to this point. The beginning of the second part of the motion states that, “in the opinion of the House, the government should work with the provinces and territories to (i) improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds”. Quebec already has a plan for revamping its health care system. Parliamentary debates will be held to improve the plan, to determine whether it is sound and to look at the pros and cons, but that is the responsibility of the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, not the House of Commons. What our health care systems are missing is financial resources, meaningful recurrent investments, and a substantial increase in the federal government's contribution. That means increasing federal health transfers from 22% of system costs to 35% and increasing the escalator from 3% to 6% per year. That is what is being called for by Quebec and the provinces, as well as by many other stakeholders. I will come back to that later. The second point in the second paragraph of the motion states, “implement strict infection prevention and control measures, including through more provincial and territorial facility inspections for long-term care homes”. Quebec has assessed, and continues to assess, its actions during the pandemic. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebec what to do or how to do it. Besides, the feds do not even have the required expertise. The best solution the federal government can come up with is to take best practices found from coast to coast to coast and impose them, as if that were within its jurisdiction. The third point in that second paragraph states, “develop a safe long-term care act collaboratively to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live”. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously opposed such federal standards, and let us not forget that the House of Commons voted against imposing standards when the NDP moved a motion in March 2021, in the 43rd Parliament. The Liberals voted against that at the time. The Liberal Party must be suffering from amnesia, because during this 44th Parliament, it is at it again with this motion. I have to say, since the advent of the NDP-Liberal government, positions have become muddled. One thing remains clear: their appetite for interfering in things that do not concern them. Has a federal government ever been defeated in an election over issues related to health? The answer is no, because the provision of health care is not a federal responsibility. In Quebec, we have often seen governments get the boot over health-related matters. Health has been an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces since 1867. Quebec has exclusive authority over health, except when it comes to the health of indigenous peoples, military hospitals, drug approval and quarantines. It is therefore up to Quebeckers to have this debate and make the decision. In a democracy, it is up to voters to sanction their government. A debate has been raging for months in Quebec over the issue of long-term care and the decisions that were made during the COVID‑19 crisis. That debate is still going on, and it is the Quebec government that will take steps to correct the situation and the public that will decide, this October, if it is satisfied with the actions of its government. Quebec already has solutions. It does not need the federal government to provide them. In his November 23, 2021, report, the ombudsman pointed out flaws, but he mostly identified measures that the Quebec government must implement so that this never happens again. In response to that report, the Quebec government presented its plan for reforming the health care system. The plan includes an array of measures, such as large-scale recruitment, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals, and increased accountability for executives. Additionally, the coroner is still investigating. People are calling for a public inquiry into the situation at long-term care facilities. In any case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and to fix their system. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Quebec already has standards. Quebec's Act respecting health services and social services includes regulations for long-term care homes. I remind members that 86% of long-term care homes in Quebec are public facilities. The report prepared by the Canadian Armed Forces at the end of its deployment to Quebec's long-term care homes is clear. There are already plenty of standards and rules for things like contamination prevention and control and PPE. However, that was not enough to stop the virus. Why was Canada's federal stockpile empty? Why did we send PPE to mainland China when we were about to be hit hard by the virus? The government should answer these questions before lecturing others. The main reason these rules were more difficult to follow is also very clear: There was a labour shortage. I will quote the Canadian Armed Forces report: “According to our observations, the critical need for CHSLDs is an improved level of staff with medical training”. If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces and Quebec get through the pandemic and improve care for our seniors, it needs to stop patronizing us. It needs to drop this idea of mandatory national standards that are ill suited to the different social and institutional contexts, and it needs to increase health transfers, which will allow the provinces and Quebec to attract and retain more health care workers. That is the federal government's job. It needs to increase health transfers. It knows that, but it thinks it can keep making one-time investments instead of recurring investments, even though we need to get through this pandemic. The Bloc Québécois is steadfast in its demand for the federal government to immediately increase health transfers to 35% of costs and to index them going forward. The Parliament of Canada itself made this demand when it adopted a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to significantly and sustainably increase Canada health transfers to support the efforts of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, health care workers and the public. All of the premiers have made this demand. The Quebec National Assembly has made this demand. All of the unions, the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the CSD, have made this demand, pointing out that the systemic funding problems facing the provinces and Quebec are hampering Canadians and Quebeckers from accessing the services they need. On April 4, 2022, the Quebec medical community, including the Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec and the Association des médecins hématologues et oncologues du Québec, along with several unions, joined the Bloc in calling on the federal government to hold a public summit on health care funding. All voters across Quebec and Canada want our health care systems to be improved. According to a Leger poll, 85% of voters support the recommendation made by the premiers and their united stance. This motion is as pointless as the last election. It is not standards that will ensure better care, but rather the funding needed to deliver that care.

1482 words

All Topics

Apr/25/22 11:23:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will oppose the motion. Let us look at the reasons why. First of all, not everything in motion is bad. For example, to the first point, everyone in Quebec agrees that the COVID-19 pandemic tragically exposed long-standing issues affecting long-term care facilities and the frontline workers who care for residents themselves—

71 words

All Topics

Mar/24/22 12:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. In debates about the pandemic, it has often been said that the challenge for public health policy has been to ensure that people are willing to comply throughout the pandemic. Does my colleague not think that if the government came up with a plan to ease these restrictions, this would provide some degree of predictability and encourage compliance?

68 words

Mar/24/22 11:36:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues stated this morning, the Bloc supported the Conservatives' last motion, which called for a plan. Today, we continue to ask for this plan, but we will not support the motion. In light of the situation around the world and here in Canada, vaccination is not the only indicator used to monitor the pandemic. That is why we will be voting against the motion.

70 words

Mar/24/22 11:34:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks French very well and his question is fundamental. We are in a pandemic. By definition, a pandemic is global. This is not an epidemic; it is a pandemic. I invited members of Amnesty International to appear before a parliamentary committee. They came to speak to us about this waiver, which Canada should support. It is absolutely clear. Canada has good intentions, but it does not seem to be following through. It must be much more proactive and help get patents waived since that would democratize access to vaccines and anti-virals. We must also provide more support for the supply and deployment chain in developing countries. It is not good enough to send vaccines that sometimes expire two weeks later. We must provide the logistical support needed so that the vaccines can be administered. Having vaccines produced on site would prevent a lot logistical problems in many cases. It would make it possible for people to be much more autonomous in terms of vaccination and enable them to provide the drugs needed to fight the pandemic.

181 words

All Topics

Mar/24/22 11:32:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we could, in fact, be on the verge of a resurgence of infections. Quebec is preparing for a sixth wave. We have not yet reached what is referred to as the endemic phase, where the rate of infection levels off and, with the appropriate measures and predictability, we are able to control the vectors and therefore the health care networks. We are a long way from that. Just look at what is happening in other countries. This is going to affect us too or is starting to affect us. I am talking about the resurgence that happened in Denmark and is currently happening in Europe. We have to continue to be careful. The precautionary principle must be applied. We owe it to the most vulnerable.

127 words

Mar/24/22 11:21:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Since the start of this pandemic, I have often asked myself the following question: What should I do? It is the pre-eminent ethical and political question. In this debate, we must consider the ethical principle of responsibility. That is the approach taken by the Bloc Québécois from the outset of the pandemic. Since the first wave, we have been making decisions by trying to predict the positive and negative impacts they would have on the future. We did not make decisions based on what had happened or what would happen. We owe it to the most vulnerable to do what is ethically responsible. I will try not to make this a partisan debate. Obviously, everyone is fed up with the pandemic and tired of restrictions. When making public health policy, we must avoid making decisions based on whims or on which way the wind is blowing. As representatives of the people, we must avoid being opportunistic and partisan. Above all, we must make informed decisions that are based not on individual interests or how we feel that day, but on the common good and everyone's best interest. The position that the Bloc Québécois is taking today is guided by these ethical considerations. It might be easier if we were in an endemic situation. Has the pandemic reached its endemic threshold? Some people think that, once we reach this threshold, we will be able to lift all of the health measures and act as if the pandemic and the virus no longer exist. In the five waves that have hit us, what infuriates me is to see how some people and some members of the House have unfortunately appropriated the opinions of experts and scientists. We have embraced a new religion, scientism. Scientists, however are unpretentious people. Usually, they are certain only about their uncertainty. Science is merely the calculation of uncertainties. The difference between science and religion is that science can be falsified. That being said, it is really tiresome to hear so many people say that we need to base our decisions on science. I do not have a problem with that, but scientists themselves cannot agree on many issues. Beyond the scientific facts, we need to apply the ethics of responsibility for the common good. That is the point to our discussion today. Will immediately lifting all the health measures as proposed in today’s motion help or hurt the situation? That is the question. I would like to talk about the endemic phase, because no one has brought it up during this debate. Some experts, if I may use the term, say that those who believe that the word “endemic” means living with the virus and lifting all health restrictions are wrong. It can even be dangerous to believe that, because it can lead to an excess of optimism and, by extension, unexpected waves of outbreaks. In the endemic phase, we still need to control the disease. We need to limit the spread of the virus by providing better ventilation, controlling the spread and increasing hospital capacity, since some people will end up in hospital. Point (a) of today’s motion says that we need to protect jobs. I looked at the employment rate recently. In February 2020, it was 5.7%. Two years later, in February 2022, after two years of pandemic, it was 5.5%. Point (b) mentions enabling Canadians to travel unimpeded. As of this morning, according to the United States embassy and consulate, if I want to cross the border, I must show a passport, proof of vaccination or a negative test result. If I want to go to Europe, the same rules apply. Just recently, WHO spoke out strongly against the lifting of measures in Europe. Were measures lifted too soon? Earlier, I was listening to the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who talked about a plan throughout his speech. We agree that a plan is needed. The federal government should have tabled a plan like the provinces and Quebec did. A plan would enable us to plan and to adapt to the situation. There are some constants in this pandemic. Quebec's plan includes lifting the mask mandate in some public places as of mid-April, but just having a plan gives Quebec the time to react if the number of cases grows, as is currently happening in Europe. It is therefore quite possible that the Quebec government will tell us that the lifting of the mask mandate is postponed for two weeks. However, the federal government did not table a plan, and that is shameful. It would be good if the government would think about that and if today's debate would inspire the government to table a plan. Point (c) of today's motion says that we need to ensure the recovery of Canada's tourism industry. However, the day we lift all restrictions and face a resurgence in the number of infections, the tourism industry will be the first one affected. One of the constants of this pandemic is that we have always had a month to see things coming. What happens in Europe happens here a month later. We thought we would be spared during the first and second waves, but that has never been the case, and we might be on the verge of a sixth wave. Another constant that everyone has experienced is that infections surge every time restrictions are lifted. The restrictions were lifted for legitimate reasons, such as ensuring that people would keep complying with public health measures and messages, to protect mental health, or to give people a break over the Christmas holidays or March break, for example. Implementing public health measures is akin to practising medicine on a large scale. If patients stop complying, there is nothing else that can be done. I believe that we are on the verge of a new wave, at least in Quebec. The people who are saying that it is not so bad because omicron is milder should try saying that to patients with terminal cancer who do not have COVID‑19 and who feel abandoned. The pandemic is affecting our health care networks, which were already weakened. Our quality of life has been restricted because these networks have not been able to provide care to patients dealing with anything other than COVID‑19. The federal government needs to increase health transfers immediately. It is inconceivable to think that the government would not provide more funding to strengthen our networks so that we can get through the sixth, seventh and eighth waves without having our lives disrupted like they were during the first five waves.

1158 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 6:45:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the parliamentary secretary to adopt a tone and attitude similar to that of his colleague from Louis-Hébert, because, in both form and substance as well as in tone, other than creating a distraction, he has not contributed all that much to the debate. One thing is clear, for instance. We know that there is at least one member on the Liberal side of the House who agrees with us that the proclaimed orders do not meet the requirements or tests needed to invoke the Emergencies Act. The member for Louis-Hébert has just told us that, if he were to vote his conscience, he would vote against this motion. He has courage. However, he says that he has a moral contract with his party, that this moral contract prevents him from defeating his party, and that he will therefore vote in favour of the motion if it is a confidence vote. Does the parliamentary secretary have the courage to tell us whether it is a confidence vote or not?

179 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 5:21:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that passing the Emergencies Act in its 1988 version is not abusive because it is guided by the consideration and review of the legislators we are. However, by making this a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister is perverting the free and informed review that we should be conducting as legislators. Worse yet, he is hiding his real intentions from his members. Does my colleague not find once again that the Prime Minister is demonstrating a shocking lack of leadership?

86 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 5:06:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem here. All day, it has been said that it would be preferable if members voted their conscience. The member for Louis-Hébert just told us the orders do not respect the invocation criteria for the act. That is what he just told us. If it were not a confidence motion, he would vote against it, but he does not know whether it is a confidence vote or not. What does the member think of this situation where the Prime Minister has not even been clear with his members and does not have the courage to tell them whether, yes or no, this is a confidence vote?

115 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 4:21:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act is the ultimate action a government can take. By making this evening's vote a confidence vote, is the Prime Minister not injecting partisanship into a vote that should reflect the conscience of each member of the House?

43 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 3:21:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said that he wanted to restore the rule of law. However, following the rule of law involves meeting the criteria required to invoke the Emergencies Act. The government failed to do that, but it still talking about restoring the rule of law. Does my Conservative colleague not think that the government is basically just living by the old adage of “do as I say, not as I do”?

80 words

All Topics