So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 197 - May/15/23

Mar/19/24 6:07:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, after these speeches, it seems to me that the amendment of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway is even more necessary. After 6.5 million deaths worldwide and 45,000 deaths across Canada, we must avoid partisan perspectives at all costs. Throughout the work that was done by the Standing Committee on Health during the management of the pandemic, my colleagues—some of whom are here in the House—were able to see that the Bloc Québécois was always trying to find solutions, to elevate the debate, to set partisanship aside, not just to find out who was at fault. The Bloc Québécois tried to find solutions, to ensure that we are all responsible for what happens and to make sure that it never happens like that again. In that sense, I do not understand why the members opposite are resistant to an independent public inquiry. First, I would like to remind them that there was a bit of a ruckus on Wellington Street at one point. There was a bit of a crisis of confidence. Public health is mass medicine, and the patient must be willing to participate if it is to work. As soon as the patient loses confidence in the measures being taken to remedy the situation, we are not in the right place and we are in trouble. If, in order to restore confidence, there had to be an objective, independent review, totally free of the interests of the executive, it seems to me that this would go a long way to reaching all those who are experiencing a crisis of confidence in our institutions. In that sense, I totally agree with what my NDP colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said. The Bloc Québécois worked in committee to replace clause 3, as my colleague's amendment proposes. At the outset, when we received the bill, we did not really understand why people disliked it so much. I felt it bothered everyone, both the members opposite and those on this side of the House. Obviously, setting up an advisory committee made no sense to us. There are so many advisory committees. However, a crisis of this magnitude deserves an independent public inquiry so that the commissioners can get to the bottom of this. Now, we thought the Conservatives were on our side. It would have been interesting if the Conservative Party had joined forces with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP given that there is a minority government in place. We could have replaced this first part of the bill. However, that did not happen. I should note that when we received the bill, our Conservative friends were not as high in the polls. I do not want to say anything else about partisanship, because my comments could be described as partisan. It seems that once people realize they are likely to end up on the other side, they are reluctant to let go and leave it to others, who are impervious to their influence, to set the record straight. In all honesty, our Conservative friends do not care much about facts. That said, the Bloc Québécois will certainly be voting against the bill as it stands. We had a number of concerns about the prevention plan. It seems to me that it goes without saying that we need a prevention plan. In fact, tools exist for that. All we need is competent people, resources that will not be squandered and cuts that are not made in the wrong place. What happened? We have some answers. We have the Auditor General's report and the results of a few small investigations. We have some answers. However, one question begs an answer above all others. Keep in mind what the government did a month before Parliament shut down. It sent 19 tonnes of personal protective equipment to China even though it was sorely lacking here, and even though the national stockpile was exhausted. If that is not a mistake, I do not know what is. However, what interests me is not who made the mistake. What interests me is why it was made. I do not care about the “who” of the matter, but the “how”. At some point, an independent public inquiry is what we need to identify why and how it happened, and make sure these kinds of things never happen again. What happened with the internationally touted Global Public Health Intelligence Network? These are the people we expect to raise the red flag when various pandemics and epidemics break out around the world. In an interdependent world like ours, where borders are becoming increasingly porous, it makes perfect sense to have a state service like that identify dangers based on scientific observation. I remember the first meetings we had with public health officials, where we were told that there was little chance of it leaving mainland China and coming here. There was little chance, they said, and we had no reason to contradict them. I remember in the early days we had debates about whether it was an epidemic or a pandemic. It did not take long before it became a pandemic, it became global and it became a nightmare. When I say that it became a nightmare, my heart aches for all those who experienced it first-hand, who lost loved ones, who were forced into lockdown, who had their lives restricted with repeated lockdowns in order to protect health care systems that were not robust enough to continue functioning. It affected every aspect of our society. Another thing that comes to mind is the chaotic management of the borders. Quarantines and borders are a federal responsibility. Why did the mayor of Montreal have to go to Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to try and pass on information so that people would have what they needed to deal with this pandemic? It was ridiculous. In short, we will never accept this bill without this amendment. We also think that the federal government needs to stay in its lane. I think it has a lot of work to do in its own areas of jurisdiction to be able to better manage any future pandemics.

1057 words

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

May/15/23 11:19:23 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, this has already been clearly demonstrated. During the pandemic, when supply chains were broken, did anyone hear about a shortage of dairy, poultry or eggs, for example? These sectors actually helped guarantee a reliable source of food for our citizens. That is one of the strengths of the model. These three pillars, which I am sure the member for Berthier—Maskinongé will talk about later, create a balance between production, fair and equitable prices, and the necessary border controls, so that is a plus.

88 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 166 - Mar/8/23

Apr/27/23 3:59:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the government is investing based on events, but the passage of Bill C-47 will not be an event. To clarify, I would say this. The government boasts about having invested a lot of money during the pandemic. However, had it taken the necessary precautions, it probably could have spent a lot less money. We likely would have been able to save the lives of more people in long-term care if the national PPE stockpile had not been completely depleted and if we had had masks to protect the personal support workers who had to work in two or three different facilities to be able to make ends meet at the end of the year, because the federal government has been making cuts to health care transfers for 30 years. The chronic underfunding of health care weakened the system, which led to anomalies during the pandemic. Yes, there is an obligation to make one-time investments, but if we want to make our health care systems strong again, then we need to make long-term structural investments to get results.

190 words

Context: House Hansard - 166 - Mar/8/23

Mar/8/23 6:32:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on Bill S‑209, an act respecting pandemic observance day. This bill officially designates a day that has been recognized as a national day of observance since 2021. Indeed, the World Health Organization declared March 31, 2021, as a national day of observance. March 11 was designated by proclamation as a national day of observance in 2021. The Quebec government chose to organize a national day of observance in 2021 and 2022. This is an important subject, and it goes beyond any form of partisanship. We were all hit by the pandemic, regardless of where we lived or who we were. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill since the goal is observance, which allows us to highlight and remember the solidarity, the generosity, the sense of duty and the resilience of all those who worked to get us out of the pandemic. Additionally, it is an opportunity to never forget those who were affected in any way, shape or form by the pandemic, as well as all those taken by this disease. I want to take this opportunity to extend my deepest condolences to all of the families who were left in mourning by COVID‑19 and its disastrous consequences. Over 16,000 people died in Quebec, 45,000 in Canada and 6.5 million around the world. In our societies, when we institute a day of remembrance, a day of commemoration, it is usually to mark the end of a socially harmful event. To build the future, we need to remember the past. That is why Quebec wisely chose “Je me souviens” or “I remember” as its motto. Fortunately, it is human nature to try to turn a bad situation into something good, something ugly into something beautiful and something negative into something positive. That is a survival mechanism that has allowed us to be, to exist and to move forward again and again, hardship after hardship, and grow stronger. Humanity always emerges stronger from tragedy. We always find a way to do so. When I was young, I read history books that talked about the epidemics and pandemics that ravaged humanity as though they were novels. Sometimes my grandparents would tell me about when they were young and about how they saw a staggering number of people dead in the streets from the Spanish flu. I would listen, shivering in horror, and tell myself that, thanks to modern medicine, that sort of thing would never happen in our time. Like many other people, I was fooling myself. When the epidemic was declared in mainland China, who would have thought that it would transform into a global pandemic and that we would experience such tragedy and horror? Who would have believed it? Beyond the armchair quarterbacks who always know better than anyone else, after the fact of course, what should have been done, beyond all the shortcomings, blunders, the actions that did or did not succeed, which we are assessing because we must always learn from our mistakes, beyond all that, we need to simply celebrate the memory of those who passed away. We must celebrate the courage and humanity of those who suffered, celebrate those who fought in their own way to get us through the pandemic and to let hope and light emerge from the bleak times in which we were living. We must remember all that. It is during these pivotal moments in history, which are so brief but so intense at the time, that we see the beauty and the strength of our societies. We also have a duty to note and highlight everyone's invaluable contributions to the fight against this pandemic. That is why I immediately think of all the health care workers who, also struck by an unknown and devastating virus, stepped up to hold failing health care systems together with the sole purpose of saving lives, saving our loved ones, our friends, our neighbours, our spouses and partners. Health care workers are the ones who never stopped making a difference. Doctors, nurses, orderlies, ambulance attendants, cleaning staff, support staff, and so on. They have all been on the front lines, one battle at a time. We can never do enough to say “thank you”. It is also important to acknowledge the work and dedication of our guardian angels, the asylum seekers who provided patient care at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic and to whom our governments have committed to regularize their status. We owe them a great deal, and we must not forget them now. Where would we have been without them, but also without the many other essential service workers, those without whom we would not have made it through this pandemic? They proudly held down the fort and ensured that our basic needs such as electricity, food and medicine were met, despite their own worries and fatigue. Let us not forget to acknowledge the incredible resiliency of our young people and their extraordinary ability to adapt when they were asked to go against their very nature to protect the rest of our society. Even though we did not want to, we had to make them put their life on hold and they will never get back those moments that they missed. These young people suffered, but they have recovered and they now have even more lust for life than they did before. Despite it all, they remained strong and ready to fight. These young people are our future, a beautiful future. I am talking about young people, but I also want to talk about our seniors, who suffered so much and who were the most hard hit by COVID‑19. We asked a lot of our young people, but what can we say about the sacrifices that our seniors had to make? They, who were already vulnerable, were the main victims of this pandemic. They experienced social isolation, sickness and heartbreak. Today, when I see them recovering from the effects of the pandemic, when I see them smile with their resiliency that will become legendary, I am proud. I applaud them, and this day of commemoration will make it possible to honour them for their outstanding courage and endurance. In closing, it is also vital to talk about everyone's resiliency. I am talking about those who had to give up their activities and stop living life to the fullest, those who lost their jobs, those who lost their business, those who had to watch their business go under or their loved ones die, suffering and alone. These are all the sacrifices, great and small, that we need to remember on this day of commemoration. We often say it, but this time we proved it to be true: If you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together.

1166 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

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 - 103 - Sep/27/22

Oct/20/22 7:12:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, my colleague from Joliette has a great sense of humour. As I said at the outset, just because someone wants to do good does not mean they are doing good, especially if they are infringing on someone else's autonomy. Usually, this applies to an individual, but it can also apply to a national government that has already thought things through and developed action plans to improve its performance and its mental health care in collaboration with community groups. I want to acknowledge community groups since this is autonomous community action week. These groups are underfunded, but they are propping up the front lines. If we want to reinvigorate these essential mental health resources, then we need to offer these people decent wages and not let them burn out because of the pandemic, which exacerbated mental health needs. I commend the people working on the front lines in community action, because fixing this issue will certainly take concrete action at every level. In my opinion, these people are keeping the system going.

174 words

Context: House Hansard - 103 - Sep/27/22

Sep/27/22 3:00:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government often boasts that it spent a lot of money on a one-time basis during the pandemic, but that does not solve ongoing problems. We need the federal government to pay its fair share on a recurring basis. That will make it possible to reduce wait lists, hire more nursing staff and put an end to mandatory overtime. That will make it possible to train and hire psychologists for the public system. When will this government understand that the future of public, universal health care requires $28 billion in recurring health transfers with an annual escalator of 6%?

103 words

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

Sep/27/22 2:59:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic, the Prime Minister kept telling Quebec and the provinces that he was prepared to discuss an increase in health transfers, but not until after the pandemic. The federal government terminated all its health measures yesterday. It is time to address this issue. There is no longer anything to stop the government from tackling the other major public health crisis, namely, the chronic federal underfunding of health care. The question is simple: When will the Prime Minister convene a summit on increasing health transfers?

88 words

Context: House Hansard - 63 - May/3/22

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

May/3/22 3:37:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, according to Bill C-8, the health transfer escalator will be 3% until 2027. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. Quebec and the provinces stand united in demanding that the government cover system costs and increase the health transfer escalator to 6%. All the experts have told us that the system has become more vulnerable than ever and that we need to restore the strength of our health care networks to recover from the pandemic. Can my colleague tell us whether she agrees with the Liberals’ measure, which seeks to maintain the Harper government's action to reduce the health transfer escalator to 3%?

119 words

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