- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Mégantic—L'Érable
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 69%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $94,201.00
- Government Page
- Oct/3/23 4:01:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister, here is the sad reality.
The executive director of a food bank had this to say today: “It is an absolute disaster. Six families could not get a food hamper last month...it is the first time in 37 years that we have had to limit our resources.”
Nevertheless, this situation does not seem to bother the Bloc Québécois, which supports saddling Quebec families with a second carbon tax. Yes, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour. It had a chance to oppose it on June 5. Instead, the Bloc chose to applaud the new tax. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.
Are the Prime Minister and his partner proud of wanting to drastically impoverish Quebeckers?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:14:23 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given that,
(i) the first carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 41 cents to a litre of gas,
(ii) the second carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 20 cents to a litre of gas,
(iii) the combination of carbon tax one and carbon tax two will mean that Canadians pay an extra 61 cents for each litre of gas,
(iv) making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch this Liberal prime minister is,
(v) the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which they live,
the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two (the "Clean Fuel Regulations").
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
The Prime Minister lives in a parallel world, a world where fiction reigns supreme and reality is largely absent, a world where people just invent solutions to very real problems. In reality, these solutions sadly do nothing to solve those problems.
Imagine a meeting of the federal Liberal cabinet where each Liberal minister dreams of changing the world in their own way, but where each of those dreams unfortunately turns to a nightmare for the real world. That is exactly what we are experiencing in Canada with this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s good ideas are very costly for all hard-working Canadians.
Instead of adopting responsible fiscal behaviour that will reduce the cost of living, the Liberal government has passed an inflationary budget that increases the cost of everything for all Canadians. Instead of adopting a real plan to address climate change, what has the Prime Minister done? He went ahead with a tax plan that in no way changes emissions in Canada to actually address climate change. Instead of implementing common-sense policies that respect the situation of Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet each month, the Prime Minister chose to implement measures that make life even more difficult. Why? To satisfy his own conscience, by making those who are the very foundation of our country and our economy, our workers, pay for his “woke” policies.
Today’s motion is clear. Allow me to reread it because it is very important and this will have an impact and disastrous consequences for all Canadians and for Quebeckers, despite what those in the government and the NDP‑Liberal coalition will be claiming all day.
The motion states that the first carbon tax and the associated sales tax—because the carbon tax is taxable with the GST—“will add 41 cents to a litre of gas”. It also states that the second carbon tax, and the associated sales tax—the GST that will also be added to the second carbon tax—“will add 20 cents to a litre of gas”.
If we do the math, we see that, with those two taxes, Canadians will pay 61 cents more on a litre of gas because a tax will be added to a tax that will be added to a tax on another tax. That is a lot of taxes. When it comes time to pay at the pump, when Canadians use a debit card or, too often today unfortunately, a credit card to fill up, they realize it right away.
Above all, when Canadians have to make difficult choices like travelling less on their own or as a family for activities or leisure because they can no longer afford the fuel they need to get around, they are being deprived of their right to live. We never expected something like this to happen in Canada.
Let us return to the motion. It says that “making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis”, like the one we are currently experiencing, “by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch this Liberal prime minister is”. It also mentions that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and not the Conservatives, “confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which they live”. In Quebec, this new carbon tax will cost more than $400 per year, per family. What the motion is asking is that “the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one”. Why is it a failure?
According to a recent United Nations report, how did Canada rank among 63 countries, despite the carbon tax being imposed on Canadians?
If we listen to the Liberals, we would think that Canada's performance is very good and that this country is in the top 10. Looking at how deep the Liberal government will dig into Canadians' pockets, we might expect Canada to be among the best countries because it is costing everyone so much. However, Canada's actual ranking is 58th out of 63.
I will not go further on that topic, because my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has the study with him and he will talk about it in his speech, which is coming up next. I encourage everyone to listen carefully to his speech. Unfortunately, the Liberals want to make the middle class pay for their so-called fight against climate change that does absolutely nothing but deprive Canadians of the financial resources they need to make ends meet.
I will return to the motion, which proposes that “the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two”, the new tax that is about to be added.
It is not enough for the Liberals to cause so much suffering to so many families; they want to go even further with the clean fuel regulations. These regulations will be applied right across Canada, even in Quebec, and Quebeckers will have to pay more at the pump for the same tank of gas.
I think that that is enough. I had the opportunity to talk to many citizens in Mégantic—L'Érable who are at the end of their rope. I visited every food bank in my riding. They have all seen an increase in the number of people using their services. People no longer have enough money to live on, and the Liberal solution is to take even more from the pockets of Canadians. One in five Canadians goes without food because groceries are too expensive. In addition, nine out of 10 young Canadians no longer dream of becoming homeowners in this country because rents are too expensive and homes are unaffordable. The Liberal solution is to impose yet more taxes.
I already hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell us, as he does regularly, that we should know that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has a provincial cap-and-trade system. In Quebec, this system is less visible than a carbon tax.
I will quote from the report of the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It says that the “cap-and-trade system is less visible than a carbon tax because it because it involves creating a market mechanism for allocating the right to emit a certain amount of carbon in the form of allowances....Therefore, there is little information on the pass-through cost of prices within the system that affects both SMEs and consumers.”
Does that mean that they are not affected by carbon pricing? No, not at all. Quebeckers are still affected by carbon pricing with this mechanism. Also, if we increase the carbon tax in Canada, the cost of absolutely everything will increase. Guy Parent, who has been a trucker for 30 years, said that the automatic reaction of companies that pay the carbon tax is to “pass it on to customers”.
In this CFIB study, it is said that any increase in taxes will certainly have an impact on consumers because small businesses do not have the resources to absorb these increases. Now, Quebeckers are being asked to pay even more through a second carbon tax that will deprive them of even more of the income they need to make ends meet. As a result, more and more Quebeckers will need to turn to food banks.
Who are the victims of this ideology? Is the coalition planning to reduce greenhouse gases by making all Quebeckers poor? That would reduce consumption and therefore production, resulting in lower emissions. If that is indeed the plan, it is not the right way to go. Depriving Quebeckers and Canadians of the money they need to make ends meet serves no purpose. That is why I am asking all parliamentarians to support this motion.
1503 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, he said so many things in such a short amount of time that it will be difficult to answer all of his questions. More importantly, my colleague just said some things that are far from true.
It is true that when the child care system was put in place, I was against it. At the time, I was working as a young politician and I had some serious questions. I would like to remind my colleague that my wife works in the child care system, so I have learned to appreciate its merits since then. I have learned how useful a child care system can be for children and how it can help them as they move into the school system.
I think that children deserve access to child care, and my colleagues agree. Women and families deserve to have access to quality child care that will help them move forward and put them on the right path for the rest of their lives.
However, people need to be able to access the system if they so choose. That is the main problem in Canada right now. This has even been a problem in Quebec over the past 25 years.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London on her speech. I also want to thank our shadow minister for families, children and social development, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, for the excellent and extremely important work she has done on this file.
Over the next few minutes, I will have the chance to talk about the reality facing Canadian families. I wanted to speak to Bill C-35 because my wife has been working in child care centres in Quebec for many years now, so she is very familiar with the system. She witnessed its creation. Unfortunately, she has also witnessed the deterioration in services over the last few years. I think it is important to share her experience of this public system, which has existed in Quebec for over 20 years.
It is important to identify the flaws in the system, to recognize that there are still problems and look at how this Parliament can work to improve the child care situation across the country and in every province. It is also important not to put all our eggs in one basket, as Quebec has done in recent years. This would allow more families, more single mothers and fathers, more people to have access to appropriate child care across Canada.
Let us talk about the current reality for Canadian families. The cost of living has skyrocketed. We are facing interest rates that are making it harder and harder for young families to access home ownership. Food prices went up nearly 12% in just a year. That far outstrips the rise in inflation. We hear that many women would like to go back to work, especially young women who just had their first child. Young women who still do not have access to a child care system could be on a waiting list for several months, even a year.
In Quebec, in particular, when a person no longer has access to parental benefits, they may have to wait another year before they get a child care spot. It is unacceptable. This prevents many women from going back to work and thriving. More importantly, it also denies children the opportunity to access a public system that could help in their development.
At first, I was against a public child care system like the one that was implemented in Quebec in recent years. However, I must now admit that such a system improves the living conditions of many children. An educational child care system helps children be better prepared for school. Sometimes, these children come from disadvantaged backgrounds and their families do not necessarily have all the tools to help them develop before they go to preschool and kindergarten.
These services are good for children who manage to get into the system. Unfortunately, there are still many children who are unable to do so. Eight years after the Liberals made their promises, they are now introducing a bill that proposes access to that kind of system in the future. Unfortunately, based on what we have seen from the Liberals over the past eight years, we are worried that this bill is all about good intentions and that the results may not be up to par.
The Liberals want to move too quickly. They are grandstanding and trying to win political points. They are implementing a fine program to help families, but once again, they are realizing a little too late that they may not have done their homework properly and that, unfortunately, thousands of children will not have access to child care.
Why will they not have access to child care spaces? First, there is already a shortage of spaces in the system, especially in Quebec, and second, there is a dire shortage of specialized educators, so the centres cannot provide services to these children.
Day cares lack money for food. I was surprised to learn that in some day cares in Quebec, they no longer give meat to young children under the age of five because they cannot afford it. Non-profit centres can no longer afford to buy meat to feed the children. Instead, they serve plant-based proteins in the morning.
All sorts of other products are being used to try to adequately meet people's needs, but meat has been banned in the day care centres because there is not enough money, because everything costs more. There is also a glaring lack of choice. Families would have had the opportunity to access child care services, but unfortunately, Quebec has favoured subsidized non-profit day cares as currently proposed by the federal program. As a result, we find ourselves in a situation where, 25 years later, needs are still not being met.
I have some stats here about children on the waiting list. These numbers are from the Government of Quebec's ministry of families. There are 286,817 spaces in the system according to data from May 31, 2022. Quebec currently has 101,244 children in early learning centres, or facilities. There are 50,444 children in subsidized child care. There are 68,431 children in non-subsidized care, the so-called private day cares. Lastly, there are 66,698 children in home-based child care.
These child care services are offered by women, entrepreneurs who decide to open their own home-based child care service but are part of the network subsidized by the Government of Quebec. These female entrepreneurs are subsidized by Quebec to provide services to children. Unfortunately, this approach will not be allowed in all provinces, which do not all have the same agreement. This means more choice.
The big problem, despite all this and after 25 years, is that there are still 33,829 children waiting for a child care space. Some 30,295 spaces are being created, so there is already a shortfall. There are 2,500 subsidized spaces to be allocated. The facilities have not yet been developed to ensure that young people can access these child care centres or spaces. The number of children with “pending” status is 50,000. After more than 20 years of the public subsidized system, there are still 50,000 children who do not have a child care space. If you multiply that number by one for the number of mothers and by two for the number of parents, it is quite clear that there is a problem with putting all your eggs in one basket and taking just one path forward.
Fortunately, the Quebec government is providing subsidies to stay-at-home mothers who decide to open their own home-based child care. This is a way out. However, we deplore certain aspects of this bill, which is why we have some requests. We will be proposing amendments in committee to allow for more choice and to achieve the ultimate goal of accessible child care for children, and particularly for mothers who need access to a child care system.
We also have concerns about cost. If we cannot even create the number of spaces promised, will the government be able to keep its promise of creating $10-a-day spaces? That is the second big question. Based on past experience and different programs presented and adopted by the Liberal government in the last eight years, there is reason to have doubts and to ask questions.
The government does have an area of expertise that could help Quebec. Quebec is currently trying to fill 18,000 educator positions and the Quebec government would like to recruit abroad to fill these 18,000 positions. I believe that the federal government has a very specific role to play to help address the shortage of child care staff. It must work with the Quebec government and the governments of all the other provinces to expedite the arrival of these educators so that an increasing number of children, families and single parents can access quality child care services.
1334 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 10:16:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Thursday, December 8, may go down in history. It is a great day for all Canadians, because today the House of Commons has a unique opportunity to give some relief to all Canadian consumers who are suffering the effects of inflation, the increase in the cost of living and the increase in the price of food by doing something that is only right.
I am very optimistic and fully hope that all of my colleagues here in the House will finally, this time, do the right thing and vote in favour of our motion, which will cancel the carbon tax applied to all food chain inputs and production.
We are giving all members of the House a unique opportunity to do what is only right to give some relief to all Canadians. This motion seeks to help get things back on track for Canadians who are suffering, those who are struggling to put food on the table.
We asked for this many times. Many times we begged the government and the other parties to support motions simply seeking to reduce the carbon tax, or at least to not increase it. This time we are going a step further. We are asking them to cancel the tax on an essential need, namely food.
This is a day that may go down in history or that Canadians may remember for a long time. In fact, some parties may decide to vote against the motion seeking to give Canadians a break.
I would like to say something right from the start. I know that some members will probably ask why the member for Mégantic—L’Érable has risen to demand that the carbon tax be cancelled when it does not apply to Quebec.
I would remind the members opposite that Quebec is not self-sufficient when it comes to oil, food and supplies. Quebec has to buy products from around the world and especially, we hope, from everywhere in Canada.
The food that comes from the western provinces, the potatoes that come from the Atlantic provinces, all of that has to be brought in by truck. Unfortunately, the carbon tax applies to all of it, and the tax will increase over the next few years. Those are the facts. To deny those facts is to deny the reality that, right now, Quebeckers live in the province most affected by increasing food prices, according to “Canada’s Food Price Report 2023”. This report was issued by Dalhousie University, the University of Guelph, the University of British Columbia and the University of Saskatchewan. We are talking about 11%. Quebec is the hardest-hit province. However, it is the only province that is not subject to the carbon tax. That is what the Liberals are going to say today, despite the fact that I just demonstrated that such arguments are totally ridiculous.
I would like to talk about something else. Who will the carbon tax hurt the most? It will hit agricultural producers and farmers in the western provinces hardest. They will have to pay much higher tax bills, and will probably have to cease production in the coming years if nothing is done, if the government does not do the right thing and eliminate the carbon tax.
What will happen if there are fewer producers in the western provinces to supply food to Quebec? We will have to get our food from farther away and pay more for the same product. If we purchase from farther away and pay more, it will take more fuel to transport the food to Quebec. That will completely offset any positive effects of the carbon tax, and we know full well that the carbon tax has not allowed the government to achieve any of its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
I will not speak any longer about everything happening in the west because my colleague from Foothills, with whom I will be sharing my time, will be happy to demonstrate the effects of the carbon tax on the western provinces.
Where are we today? The newspapers are publishing headlines like “The coming months will be really difficult” and “Multiple devastating effects”. Of course, we are talking about the interest rate hike announced yesterday by the Bank of Canada, combined with the increase in the price of food which I will address in a few minutes and which is clearly explained in Canada's Food Price Report 2023.
I will read a paragraph from an article by Michel Girard this morning in Le Journal de Montréal, in which he says that the coming months will be really difficult: “Who is responsible? According to economists Jean-François Perrault and René Lalonde of the Bank of Nova Scotia...federal government spending on COVID‑19 support programs forced the Bank of Canada to aggressively raise interest rates. They believe that federal support for COVID‑19 victims, which amounted to more than $200 billion, was 'welcome, but probably overdone'. This spending created excess demand, which the Bank of Canada is trying to curb by increasing the cost of borrowing.”
There you have it. As we said earlier, the government had to do something, but the Liberals were sloppy once again. That is what the Auditor General said this week in her report. The government was sloppy, it was wasteful, it spent too much, and that is why we are seeing skyrocketing inflation today. That is why the Bank of Canada had to raise interest rates. At the same time, if everything is going up, if inflation is increasing, if the interest rates are skyrocketing, it is not surprising that the price of food is going up as well.
Canada's Food Price Report shows that the price of fish has increased by 10%, and the price of butter, by 16%. Even the price of fresh and dried pasta has gone up. When we were students and did not have much money to spend on food, we bought pasta. We ate pasta five days a week and, on weekends, instead of eating spaghetti, we ate macaroni. The price of pasta has gone up 32%. It is not surprising that students can no longer afford an apartment and have to live in their parents' basement.
The problem is that the government caused this inflation. We could call it Liberal inflation. The price of everything is going up. For example, the report projected that food costs for a family of four would reach approximately $14,700 in 2022. Based on what was observed in 2022, it appears that there will be a $455 increase for 2022. Worse yet, next year, the increase for the same family will be $1,065. That is a lot of money.
As I was saying earlier, Quebec is the province hardest hit by rising food prices. According to the report, the price of food has increased by 11% in Quebec. The increase across Canada varies between 9.2% and 11% in a single year. I do not know many people who received salary increases that will allow them to offset these increases. Moreover, it is not just the cost of food. I have not said anything about the cost of rent, mortgages or the additional costs of car loans. All of these new costs Canadians will have to pay in the coming years are outrageous.
It gets worse. According to HungerCount 2022 published by Food Banks Canada, food bank usage increased by 15% this year. The report states that high food prices are limiting Canadians' access to food. It is estimated that 23% of Canadians eat less than they should. That is what is happening in Canada in 2022. Normally, during the summer, the demand on food banks drops. That was not the case this year. This year, food banks faced their most difficult summer in 41 years.
The government can do something, Parliament can do something, the House can do something. Every member can do something today by voting for the opposition's motion, which asks that the carbon tax on food inputs and production, including all farm fuels, grain drying, fertilizer, transportation and other aspects of the food supply system be eliminated to give Canadians a little respite and allow them to put more bread, butter and milk on the table.
1404 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the main thing I see is the direction the Liberal government is taking with the interest payments on the ballooning debt that we are seeing year after year. Next year or the year after, the government will be paying more in interest than in health transfers for all of the provinces. That greatly reduces the flexibility the government could have had to help the provinces, including Quebec, deal with the current health crisis. I am trying to think of something good in the fall economic statement, but unfortunately, I still cannot figure out how it will improve the lives of Quebeckers.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 2:34:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the only promises Liberals keep are the ones that empty the pockets of all Canadians.
Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that Quebec would be spared from the decision to triple the carbon tax for Canadians next year.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that Quebeckers will be completely spared the carbon tax hike, that no Quebecker will pay more taxes and that no one will be burdened by an increase in the costs of their purchases? Will the carbon tax be more expensive for Quebeckers, yes or no?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:11:49 p.m.
- Watch
They can use words like “hypocrisy” to describe what happened and our leader's position, but what is really hypocritical is what the Bloc Québécois is trying to sell us. They know full well that Quebeckers, fathers and workers will end up paying more because of the Liberal government's decision to triple the carbon tax. Ultimately, the government's intention is to force the provinces that are not imposing the carbon tax to increase their system.
The worst part is that the government's carbon tax has successfully demonstrated that its targets do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The Liberal government failed to meet any greenhouse gas reduction targets with its promise that the carbon tax would be capped at $50 per tonne. After the election, we learned that the government intends to triple the carbon tax because it was a failure and they were unable to meet their greenhouse gas targets. Now people will have to pay three times as much. They will not be able to use their vehicles because it will cost them more, so they will emit fewer greenhouse gases. Where is the logic in the current Liberal government's attitude, other than making workers and families pay for its policy that fails to reduce greenhouse gases?
That is the reality. At this time, with the carbon tax and the government's desire to make Canadians pay more and more in taxes, with its excessive spending policies and its use of public funds to create new programs, and considering Canada's rising debt levels and record deficits, it is not surprising that everything is more expensive.
Let us imagine a mother who goes to do her grocery shopping. The first thing she sees at the grocery store is how much more fresh fruit and vegetables cost. In the meat section, a small package of chicken that used to cost $8 now costs $16. We are told that meat prices have increased by 6.5%, but that is an average of different kinds of meat. The cost of basic meat, the kind we buy to feed our families, has gone up a lot more than 6.5%, according to statistics.
Dairy prices have gone up by 7%. We need to put bread and butter on the table, but the price of bread has risen by 15.4%. In the fresh produce section, prices are up by 13.2%. Many fruits are not grown in Canada. It is expensive to ship them. We cannot produce all fruits, because many do not grow in Canada.
We are feeling the effects of this inflationary crisis. Transportation, which will be hardest hit by the tripling of the carbon tax, is the main reason prices are going up, and things are going to get even worse. The price of sugar is up 11%; fish is up 8.7%. That is what families have to contend with.
People can argue about the effects of the carbon tax, claim it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and say we all need to do our part, but experience has shown that it does not work. For it to work, people have to pay three times more tax. The government decided it was up to individuals, and only individuals, to make all the sacrifices and go without so that it can move toward meeting its own targets.
I recently witnessed what goes on at grocery stores. This is what happens in times of crisis. Stores put out flyers on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. It used to be that people would wait until the weekend to do their shopping because sale items would still be available then. That is no longer the case. Visit a grocery store any Thursday or Friday. The place is packed, and there are lineups everywhere.
People want to be sure they get the products that are on sale that week at the grocery stores so that they can put a bit more food in their cart. That is what we are seeing at the grocery stores today.
I would love for the Prime Minister to go to the grocery store every Tuesday and Thursday for two or three weeks to see what is going on. Then he could go to the store on Saturday and Sunday, and he would see that there is absolutely nothing left on the shelves, no more of the discounted products, because everything sold out quickly since people have no choice.
According to the statistics, 24% of Canadians say they have cut back how much food they buy. That means a quarter of Canadians are buying less food because everything costs more. We are in Canada. Things like that should not be happening here.
I also wanted to tell Mike's story, but I am running out of time.
We cannot allow the Liberals to make people across Canada pay the price for their decision to triple the carbon tax. If this tax hike goes through, things that people cannot afford today will become even more unaffordable tomorrow.
848 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:08:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for starters, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester.
Before I get down to business, I just want to say that this is my first speech in the House since my mother passed away this summer. She was my greatest supporter. She tuned in to every single one of my speeches, interventions and television appearances.
I feel a little emotional about speaking today, knowing that she is watching but will not be sharing her thoughts with me afterward. I know she is there, as supportive as always. She was always there throughout my career. Thanks to her, my family, my brothers and I always had enough to eat. She made sure we never went hungry, even in tough times. Cancer took her life this summer. She was sick for just a few months. She was in good shape.
I just want to acknowledge my mother, who is watching us. I am sure I will hear her comments after my speech, which I already know will be excellent, because that is what she always told me. A mother is a mother, after all. Wherever she is right now, I am thinking of her.
Madam Speaker, today we are debating the motion moved by the leader of the official opposition, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax.
I would like to begin by setting the record straight on a few points.
I heard my Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues boasting about the fact that Quebec has its own carbon pricing system. They said that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec and that the leader of the official opposition should take into account the fact that Quebec has its own system.
However, they seem to be forgetting one very important thing. Unfortunately, not everything we consume in Quebec is produced in Quebec, so Quebeckers will inevitably pay more when the Liberal government triples its carbon tax.
Not only will Quebeckers pay more because everything will be more expensive, because everything that is transported or passes through another province will be more expensive, but the federal government has made it clear that the provinces will have to adjust and ensure that their carbon pricing system reflects the figures that the Liberals want to put in place.
What does that mean?
That means that the Bloc and the NDP are supporting further federal interference in the system that was established in Quebec, in order to force Quebec to make changes to its laws to meet the federal government's tax objectives.
In other words, the poorest will once again have to pay the price for decisions made by this Liberal federal government and backed by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. That is the reality.
I do not understand how the Bloc and the NDP can ignore this situation, this clear and specific reality.
538 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a question immediately came to mind when I was listening to the speech by the health minister, the same minister who refused to have any discussions with the provinces about health costs and what to do about health care.
Did the minister consult the province of Quebec, the government of Quebec and, above all, the health minister of Quebec about establishing its dental care program for children?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite cannot impute motives or attribute words to other colleagues without evidence. All he is doing right now is spewing rhetoric and making some pretty big assumptions about what is going to happen—
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague's question is very important. I sincerely think that we need to be having these discussions in the House.
I remember that a similar proposal was made in the context of an accord, the Charlottetown accord. A 25% minimum representation was proposed at the time.
I did some research and looked into what the position of the Bloc Québécois and its leaders was at the time with respect to that accord, which sought to maintain a minimum representation of 25%. I discovered that the Bloc's position at the time was to vote against the accord.
Today I am being lectured, but in the past there was an attempt to maintain this 25% representation and the Bloc contributed to the defeat of that accord. I think that some of my colleagues should do their homework and do some research. They should see the citations I have in front of me. I would be happy to share them with everyone, but I will restrain myself because I am very happy that Quebec will be able to keep 78 MPs for now.
If we want to open a new constitutional debate, it is up to the House. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will think about it this time before making decisions based only on preventing the Canadian confederation from working.
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, to which I would reply that responsibility for the progress of parliamentary work in the House lies with the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
I hope the government will do everything it can to ensure that this bill is passed very quickly, so that we can then work with the Commission de la représentation électorale du Québec.
The parliamentary secretary should put that question to his colleague right in front of him. This would give us an idea of the importance he wants to attach to the passage of Bill C-14.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today we are debating the bill on preserving provincial representation in the House of Commons. Understandably, this is very important to me.
Since the tabling of the 2022 budget by the NDP-Liberal government remains the focus of media attention and discussion, it is clear that very little will be said about the bill we are debating today. However, it is important for me to share my comments and opinions on Bill C-14.
People should know that we are currently gathered to debate Bill C-14, a bill that would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it did in the 43rd Parliament, that is, the preceding Parliament, when the number of seats in the House are readjusted after each decennial census, in future years.
As we know, the House of Commons is the House of the people. It is the House of all Canadians, those from the north, south, east, west, urban areas, rural areas, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, by way of Quebec, Ontario and the Prairies. All Canadians, and I mean all, must be properly represented in the House of Commons. That is why it must be as representative as possible of all Canadian citizens—and it must also represent their differences.
On March 2, I moved a motion in the House. I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.”
I have to say that Bill C‑14, which we are studying today, is essentially the same as the motion we moved on March 2 and for which we sought the unanimous consent of the House. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, that I suspect was politically driven, the former Green Party leader enthusiastically denied unanimous consent of the House for this motion. I say “enthusiastically”, because the former Green Party leader even applauded when the motion was defeated. She turned towards some of my colleagues to give a thumbs up, proud of her work. That is what happened. I saw it from where I was sitting. I was paying close attention to what was going on because there was almost unanimous support in the House to adopt this motion. Unfortunately, the leader of the Green Party chose to play politics instead of allowing the House to unanimously adopt this motion, which would have helped the government get Bill C‑14 passed more quickly.
I am nevertheless pleased and happy to see the government's positive response to the motion, even though it was rejected by the Green Party. I am also happy to see that the government has presented a bill that essentially says the same thing as the motion, which is that no province, including Quebec, should lose a seat during an electoral redistribution.
Frankly, this Liberal bill retains the same redistribution formula that was created by the Fair Representation Act in 2011. In fact, I would like to point out that it was the previous Conservative government that created the legislation with the aim of making Canadian democracy more representative, adding 30 new seats to the House of Commons.
Of course, we respect the work done by the independent commissions, which work separately in each province and whose mission is to draw and readjust electoral boundaries. That is not what we are talking about today. We are not talking about boundaries, but I will come back to that because I have a message for the commissions about the redistribution of electoral boundaries in each province.
I think we need to look at this and consider more than one factor in determining how seats should be distributed in each province. We must provide more flexibility so that Canadian voters can be properly represented and know that their voices are being heard when their MP speaks here in the House.
The work of representation in the House is very important to Canadian democracy. This work has been under way since last October. It will make the distribution of seats more representative of Canada's population. As I said, I intend to actively participate in the process in Quebec to ensure that the voices of the people in my riding, as well as those living in the regions, are heard.
I would remind members that the process that is under way will add three new seats in Alberta, one new seat in British Columbia and one new seat in Ontario. Bill C-14 guarantees that no province or territory will lose a riding. I want to point out that, without Bill C-14, Quebec would lose a seat in the proposed electoral redistribution process. Quebec would go from 78 members to 77. That is why we chose to speak and why we wanted to move a motion to say that, in a process like this, we should not be going backwards and taking away what the provinces have gained from the beginning.
When the law was established, no one could have predicted that the population of Canada would not grow more or less evenly everywhere, in all the regions, so a minimum number of seats was allocated per province. Unless I am mistaken, that number dates back to 1985. Now, we need to update the minimum number of MPs per province, and that is what Bill C-14 will do.
I am also pleased to see that because, beyond the partisan debates, the loss of a member, or in other words a seat in the House, would have caused adverse effects and would have made the work of the electoral boundaries commissions more difficult for people in rural or more remote regions of Canada. I will talk more about this later in my speech.
As we know, every day, Canadians, in other words the voters, the people who send us here, rely on their MPs to give them answers, to respond their questions and to help them find solutions in their dealings with various federal government bodies, and sometimes even with other issues. Like all my colleagues here, I am sure, over the past two years, during this unprecedented and unexpected pandemic that has created so many problems for our constituents, I have received calls related to many subjects, including everything from employment insurance services to the Canada Revenue Agency. I have also received requests from constituents who simply did not know where else to turn, people who were in trouble because they had no money because their business had shut down and they did not know how to apply for the various assistance programs. We have really been there to address our constituents' requests. This is also part of our duties as members of Parliament.
To be sure, one of our main roles as MPs is to be here in the House doing our work as lawmakers, which means passing laws, making sure those laws are fit for our society, making sure we represent our constituents, and voting in accordance with our values, with what our constituents want and with what we believe is best for Canada's future. That is our main role.
Our secondary role has changed a lot over the years, and people now expect their MP to help them deal with the government and support community development and business associations to ensure they feel heard. Most MPs are very far from Ottawa. In my case, it is not so bad, because my riding is about a four-hour drive from Ottawa, five hours if I leave from one place, a little more or less if I leave from another.
That certainly means a lot of time on the road, but Canada is very big from coast to coast to coast. Most people are unable to get to the national capital, so that is the MP's job.
Despite technology, it is clear that many citizens have been frustrated by the lack of information or help from various departments, not to mention that replies are slow in coming, especially for things like employment insurance and Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, inquiries.
As I said, voters count on their MPs for help, support and information. For people in Canada's rural regions, their MP is often the only connection between them and the federal bureaucracy. There certainly are not employment insurance offices everywhere. There is certainly no CRA office or representative in every Canadian community. That is why MPs are working more and more closely with their constituents.
I would say that there was a big difference during the pandemic. Before, people would come to their MP's office, often for passports and occasionally for problems with EI. Many, many people who were in need of these services during the pandemic discovered their MP's office. Although the programs are now over, people are still coming to the MP's office, which is wonderful. However, we cannot have a situation where the MP's office becomes inaccessible because it is overwhelmed by too many requests or because the riding is so big that people are too far away from their MP and cannot reach them quickly.
Connection is important. Reducing the number of MPs in a province would diminish this relationship between constituents and their MP. There definitely needs to be standards and rules in place for determining the number of MPs. However, it is important to highlight the difference between MPs from urban regions and those from rural regions, including the distance that some have to cover and the number of municipalities they represent in the House.
At the end of the day, Quebec is currently the only province that will see a change under the proposed redistribution. That is where Bill C‑14 comes in. It will give the Quebec electoral redistribution commission greater latitude to do its work and propose a new electoral map. I hope that during this review, some thought will be given not only to population, but also to geography. I will come back to that.
As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I represent a riding with the same number of voters as a riding in Montreal, but I have to cover an area that is 500 times larger than a riding in a big city. In my riding alone, there are 50 municipalities that I must serve. That means 50 mayors and 50 municipal councils. There are two, three, four or even five times that number of social clubs, not to mention chambers of commerce, business associations, agricultural associations and other groups. All these people want to have access to their MP and want to talk to me.
In a large riding, the MP will be dealing with 50 times the number of groups. For example, MPs for the Quebec City region only have one mayor to deal with. I have 50, and they are all important to me. The mayor of a municipality with 200 people is just as important as the mayor of a municipality with 26,000 people. I have to be just as present for the mayor of a small municipality as for the mayors of big cities. It is very time consuming.
How can MPs in the regions be more effective and do a better job if this difference is not taken into consideration?
If 20 municipalities are added to my riding during this process, it will be nearly impossible to meet all 70 or so mayors and municipal councils. Since each municipal council meets at least once a month, I will not have enough time in a year to meet all of the municipal councils. This ultimately severs the connections between the MP, the federal government and our constituents.
How are we meant to properly follow up on their issues or on all of the projects that councils and residents present to us? To ask that question is to answer it.
The bigger the rural ridings get, the less access these constituents have to their MP. Some might say that this is natural, but I disagree. As I said earlier, the people in our regions do not have direct access to federal government services. Their only point of access is the constituency office.
I hope that the commission that will be responsible for reviewing the electoral boundaries, which will soon be working in Quebec, will take the representation of the regions in Canada into account.
Keep in mind that there is some latitude in the act to allow for a discrepancy between the ridings' average population and what will ultimately be applied. I am not asking that the act be changed, simply that this flexibility be applied as much as possible so that the rural reality is taken into account when electoral maps are being redrawn. This is important, and it is being done. The Constitution itself recognizes this concept, having already established a minimum number of members for each province, despite the fact that some have fewer residents. That is the reality.
Without Bill C-14, there would have been less latitude for the Quebec commission, which would have had to search high and low for citizens no longer in ridings in order to take a seat away from Quebec. This is unacceptable.
A member of Parliament is like a family doctor. It is not that we save lives, because I would not want anyone to think I am comparing myself to a doctor by any means, but, when there are too many patients, it is hard to get an appointment and that is, unfortunately, what is likely to happen if we add in distances and all the rest.
Since the spring of 2020, more and more people have been using platforms such as Zoom, Teams and FaceTime. It may have revolutionized communications. We can indeed have more meetings. I have had more opportunities than ever to meet with town councils because we have this new way of doing things. I use this technology, but there is nothing like a good old-fashioned face-to-face meeting that gives people a chance to talk and really communicate.
To ensure that MPs can represent their constituencies well and do their job in rural ridings that keep getting bigger, the concept of rurality must be part of the electoral boundary redistribution process. Any change to the electoral map that does not take into account geography, demographics, the people's needs, culture and who we are will have an impact on democracy.
I am proud of our regions. I grew up and still live in a region, where I have chosen to stay. It is in my DNA. I was the mayor of a town in the regions, Thetford Mines. I was involved in all kinds of associations, and I have always considered connections between each level of government, municipal, provincial and federal, to be extremely important.
It is very important to maintain our voices in the House of Commons and to ensure that we can keep accessing the people who can help us and help our voters deal with the giant federal machine even when they do not necessarily have direct access to federal government services close to home in each of our ridings.
I am pleased to see that Quebec will not be losing any seats. I am also happy to say that we will be supporting Bill C-14. However, the work has only just begun.
2622 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 2:28:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the last election.
Ninety per cent of Quebeckers rejected the NDP and its $200-billion spending plan in the last election. The ink is not yet dry on the agreement, but already the Premier of Quebec is saying the new NDP-Liberal government will meet with stiff opposition.
How can the Quebec members of the NDP-Liberal government support an agreement like this knowing it will infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:37:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I believe that the government must keep a minimum of 78 Quebec members in the House of Commons to ensure representation, and that it must also take into account the demographic reality. As for the recognition of nationhood, that is an issue we must continue to debate, and it is one that Quebeckers and MPs will always continue to debate.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:36:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
What I am saying is that it is much more difficult to have enough residents to reach the Elections Canada targets in a rural area. Municipalities must be added. For example, we would have to go from 50 to 75 municipalities to strike a balance. What I am asking is for Canada's rural reality to be considered. Our country is the second largest in the world. It would be appropriate for our standards and rules to take this into consideration and for us to ensure that citizens are represented.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:34:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Again, I think it is important to understand that a redistribution proposal that takes seats away from any province will have negative effects on the representation of voters in that province.
Therefore, we must consider all the factors, such as Quebec's specific character, Quebec's nationhood, demographic weight, the political weight of each province, and Canada's changing demographics. I think all these factors need to be considered when it comes time to redraw the electoral map, but I especially believe that we must never downgrade a province's representation. That is important.
We will have the opportunity to discuss this in the coming weeks and to comment on this issue during the consultation being launched by Elections Canada. However, I remind the House that the Prime Minister could say right now that he is going to maintain the number of seats in Quebec at 78, and that is what we are asking him to do.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:22:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would first like to reiterate the Conservative Party's support for the people of Ukraine. I think this is an extremely dark period in our history. People who were living in happiness just yesterday are living in fear today. I think it is important that we take every opportunity to support these people, salute their courage in resisting Putin's invasion, and let them know that all Canadians are behind them.
We are here to discuss democracy in Canada and how Canadians are represented in the House of Commons. This opportunity was given to us by the Bloc Québécois motion that we are debating. The federal electoral map is revised every 10 years, and each time, it challenges many of our preconceived ideas. We must have these discussions, but we must also use each one as an opportunity to remind ourselves of the importance of the role of members in the House of Commons.
By way of background, Elections Canada has estimated that the number of MPs from Quebec should drop from 78 seats to 77 in 2024. Conversely, Ontario and British Columbia would each gain a seat, while Alberta would gain three.
I want to put partisan politics aside and speak about the role of an MP. Losing a member of Parliament, from any province or region, has negative consequences for the constituents, especially in rural regions, and rural areas are the ones most likely to see their riding disappear.
Canadians are looking for answers to their questions and concerns every day. Many are frustrated about the lack of information from different departments. On top of that, the government can be slow to respond, especially over the past two years during the COVID-19 crisis, when no one knew where to turn. The members here in the House of Commons have offices that often fielded calls from constituents asking for help understanding the many measures announced by various governments during that time.
Naturally, people turned to their members of Parliament. In many cases, the MP's office was the constituent's only way to connect with the government, because there came a point where they just could not get an answer. Our MPs therefore took over for the government when it was not able to provide answers quickly. This very important connection between constituents and their MPs could be more difficult to maintain if there are no standards to ensure that people living in rural areas can maintain meaningful access to their MP.
As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I obviously do not represent as many constituents as a member from a Montreal riding. However, my riding is 500 times bigger and contains 50 municipalities. That means 50 mayors, 50 municipal councils, hundreds of social clubs or even seniors' groups, not to mention dozens of chambers of commerce, business associations, agricultural associations and so on.
How can one MP have conversations with 50 or more mayors and find time to meet them all? Even if that MP met with just one town council per month—because they all meet around the same time—it would be impossible to meet with all of them over the course of a four-year term in office. There are not enough months. Four years is 48 months, and I have 50 municipalities. If I want to see each municipal council, it is just not possible over the course of a single mandate.
Fortunately, we now have Zoom and digital tools that enable us to meet with more people at the same time, but nothing is quite like meeting face to face, connecting with people and having real conversations with the folks we represent. How are we supposed to make sure development and infrastructure projects are moving forward? How are we supposed to cope with the challenge of fitting all that in, doing all that work?
The answer is self-evident. My riding is not the only one like this. Many of my colleagues are in exactly the same position with their ridings.
Electoral redistribution could reshape these ridings, making them even larger to cover, which will limit Canadians' access to their MPs and to federal government services.
MPs are actually a bit like family doctors in the sense that, when they have too many patients, it is hard to get an appointment. The more constituents and territory MPs have to cover, the harder it is for them to hear their constituents' concerns. It is also harder for citizens to access their MPs, the government or the House of Commons to make their wishes known. Quebeckers from the regions, especially those from rural Quebec, also deserve to maintain their political weight in Ottawa, as do rural Canadians across the country.
I worry about how the people in my riding and in the regions of Quebec and Canada will be affected by electoral redistribution. If we reduce the number of MPs, people will no longer be able to make their voices heard as much as in the past. For the sake of members' representation and work in rural constituencies, the Prime Minister needs to consider rural Canada and Quebec in his criteria.
Any change to the electoral map that does not take into account the geography, demographics or needs of the local population is, in my opinion, doomed to diminish Canadian democracy. Any redistribution that does not take into account the regional reality is also condemned to change our democratic life. At the risk of repeating myself, the proposed redistribution will reduce the weight of rural regions. They will be less represented than urban ridings.
I will make a comparison. A member of Parliament from a city is no better than a member from a rural region. The work is simply different. People who live in a major city may have access to the office of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, because that department has an office in their town. Residents will not go to their MP with questions. They will go to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. When there are too many problems, they will end up going to the MP, but the first point of contact with the government for people who live in big cities is often the government offices that are there.
There are no federal immigration or transportation offices in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable. Such offices do not exist. The only gateway for accessing federal services is the MP's office, so we get a very high volume of calls. I understand that our job is not to represent the government in our ridings, but when people have questions for the federal government and do not have direct access to the government in their riding, they go through their MP. That is the reality of the current situation.
The Prime Minister can decide to maintain the number of seats in every riding if he wants to. He can choose not to reduce the number of seats as part of the electoral redistribution that is currently under way. I think the Prime Minister should take what I am saying into consideration. No province should have to lose a seat in any scenario. If that happens today, then it could happen again in 10 or 20 years, and who knows which provinces will be affected by this situation next.
Quebec is not the only province affected. There are four other provinces whose representative weight is greater than their demographic weight. They are Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is food for thought.
We need to maintain the representation of the regions in Parliament so that the voices of all Canadians, no matter who they are, can continue to be heard by their MP. That is the right thing to do, both to protect rural areas and to preserve the uniqueness of Quebec as a nation within Canada.
I sincerely believe that, right now, the Prime Minister has an opportunity to do the right thing. He can decide not to reduce the number of MPs in Quebec from 78 to 77, while still giving other provinces more MPs so they are better represented.
1378 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/21 12:21:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, this being December 6, I will take a few moments to acknowledge the anniversary of the awful tragedy at Polytechnique Montréal where 14 young women lost their lives.
It is important to always take a few minutes on this day to reflect on what happened at the time and what continues to happen in our society. Violence against women still exists, now more than ever. Taking the time to commemorate this horrible tragedy makes us look at the present to see what has been done and what we are doing at home, in our neighbourhoods and across the board to ensure that such things never happen again. This includes small gestures when a man or a woman is in an unacceptable domestic violence situation. Women tend to end up vulnerable, without resources and without help, because they simply do not have the means and the necessary resources at hand to report and flee domestic violence.
I want to give everyone, especially the women in my riding, the phone numbers they can use if they find themselves in a difficult situation. In the Appalaches RCM, the La Gîtée shelter can be reached at 418-335-5551. In the Granite RCM, people can contact La Bouée at 819-583-1233. I commend the women in the Granite RCM who are marching today to speak out against violence against women and to advance the cause. In central Quebec, the La Volte-Face women's shelter can be reached at 819-795-3444. Anyone in need anywhere in Quebec can contact the domestic violence service SOS Violence Conjugale at 1-800-363-9010.
Resources are available, and people are there to help. It is just a matter of getting to a phone to ask for help. This is something each and everyone one of us should be more conscious of.
I also want to address Canadians who are currently living with domestic violence. Far too often, these people are overlooked or ignored, and others act as though nothing is going on. There has been an unusually high number of femicides since the beginning of the pandemic, and this trend is continuing. If every one of us took the time to recognize what is going on, to do something and to try to help people who are dealing with violence against women, we could surely make a difference and potentially prevent someone from becoming a victim. Anyone could be a victim at any time, in any place, because others turn a blind eye and pretend as though nothing is going on.
I wanted to say a little something given that today is December 6. It is extremely important and is directly connected to the bill we are debating today. This bill would provide meaningful protections against intimidation and harassment of health care workers. This type of intimidation has no place in our society.
The Thetford police force has released its 2020 annual report, and I bring this up because we will be calling on police officers to enforce a law that would eliminate or reduce instances of harassment of health care workers, essential workers and our guardian angels who have been there for us since the beginning of the pandemic.
The police are very aware of the situation and the problems, and they too wish they had the means to intervene. For example, they intervened 315 times in situations involving people with mental health issues, which is an increase of 17% from 2019 to 2020. Even though the number of suicides and attempted suicides decreased by 3% in the region during the same period, police expect an increase in this type of intervention in the coming weeks and months, as indicated in the report.
These police officers have been there from the beginning. I think we should spare a thought for them, as they will have to enforce these laws and implement these measures, while respecting people's right to protest peacefully.
Looking at everything that has happened since the beginning of the pandemic, many of our health care workers, our guardian angels, shared with us that they were exhausted dealing with an illness that they knew practically nothing about. They were not sufficiently protected and feared for their family members and friends. They also had to work overtime, sometimes 16 hours straight. It was extremely exhausting for all health care workers.
As the situation evolved, we unfortunately saw more and more people protesting against these very workers who were putting their heart and soul into trying to save people, our neighbours, our uncles, our aunts, our grandmothers and grandfathers from this horrible virus, which has been gripping our society since March 2020. That is on top of the stress at work caused by this unknown virus and professional burnout. I think it is about time that the government intervened to protect and, above all, to recognize these workers.
I, too, want to recognize the entire profession. I am thinking of the nurses, who have done an extraordinary job and who are also stretched thin. It is not only them, however; I am also thinking of the orderlies and the support staff. I am thinking of those who disinfect our hospitals. We do not often talk about them, but they are directly on the front lines of the battle against COVID-19. I am thinking of the administrative staff who are there to greet us in hospitals and who surely have also had to go through a very difficult time. I am thinking of the lab technicians who handle this virus to determine which of us have come into contact with it.
All these individuals deserve the respect and, most importantly, the protection of the government and fellow members of the public. They should not be harassed or threatened. I am thinking of the dedicated physicians and specialists. I am also thinking of the child care workers who, in taking care of our children, must also deal with the additional stress of the pandemic every day, because young children do not have access to vaccination and are a potential target of this accursed virus, even though its effects on them are not as serious.
I am thinking of teachers, of police officers, whom I mentioned earlier, and of paramedics and social workers, who also have to go out and see a lot of people because of mental health issues. At the very least, all of these workers should be protected by their government against harassment and intimidation.
For these reasons, I will certainly support this initiative, especially since it was included in the platform proposed by the member for Durham, the leader of the official opposition, during the last election campaign. He wanted to introduce a bill to protect critical infrastructure, including in health care.
I am also doing this for my daughter, who is currently studying to be a nurse. She has the calling and the drive, and she wants to help and to serve. I think that we should support and encourage her, not discourage her.
1183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
