- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Saint-Jean
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, since these are the last speeches before we go spend a week in our ridings and many members have already left the House to go be with their families and constituents, I would like to commend all those stalwart members who are sticking it out to the end. There are not very many of us, judging by the number of empty spaces there were in the parking lot this morning and by how easily I was able to find an EV charging station. There are very few of us here this Friday, but I would say that what we are lacking in numbers, we are making up for in quality.
The last thing we are talking about today before leaving for our last week in our ridings before Christmas is Bill S‑245. I do not really have any kind of an inside scoop to share since my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean already announced just two weeks ago that the Bloc Québécois would be supporting this bill. I like to contradict my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean from time to time just to tease him, but I will limit my teasing to his clothing choices rather than a bill that has such a significant impact on some people's lives. In short, I will also be supporting Bill S‑245.
I think my colleagues have already realized that the Bloc Québécois does not tend to be overly partisan. If a bill is good for Quebec, we vote for it, no matter who introduced it. If it is not good for Quebec, we vote against it. We always explain the reasons for our decision.
Bill S-245 does not really fit in that framework. It is about Canadian citizenship. It affects people who may live in Quebec, our constituents, but it also affects people who may live elsewhere in Canada or even elsewhere in the world. This bill is fundamentally connected to a person's right to Canadian citizenship. While it may seem a little counterintuitive for a Bloc member to defend Canadian citizenship, the principle I am defending today in supporting Bill S‑245 is that no one should have their citizenship arbitrarily taken away just because they have reached the not particularly venerable age of 28.
I would like to start by outlining the contents of this bill and its purpose, but I also want to offer two brief editorial comments about this bill's predecessor, Bill S‑230, and the immigration file in general because no bill should ever be analyzed in a vacuum without context and broader considerations. If we take too narrow a view of this bill in debate, we are likely to miss opportunities to improve not only this bill but also future bills.
Now back to Bill S‑245. What is this bill all about? Bill S‑245 seeks to close a gap, a loophole in the Citizenship Act. The bill concerns a small group of Canadians who lost their Canadian citizenship or have actually become stateless due to government policy changes over time. This small group of Canadians is called “lost Canadians”, and there are about 100 to 200 of them.
Here is a little background information. The federal Parliament passed its first citizenship legislation in 1947, but it was flawed from the beginning. Citizenship was not considered a guaranteed right at the time, but rather a discretionary power of Parliament. For instance, although it was set out that the children of a Canadian parent would also be Canadian, under this system, when the responsible parent took the citizenship of another country, his or her children lost their Canadian citizenship.
Furthermore, the legislation provided that children born abroad would receive citizenship only if their parents registered them within two years of their birth. It also included an obligation for these children to be domiciled in Canada on their 24th birthday if they were born to a Canadian parent who was born outside Canada. This meant that many individuals, even if they lived in Canada for part of their lives, may have unknowingly lost their citizenship status.
Finally, the legislation discriminated against certain children based on the circumstances of their birth. In order to have Canadian citizenship under the law, a child had to be born to married parents. The main purpose of the 1977 amendment was to simplify the citizenship regime. Once again, however, the amendments were far from perfect.
Although the new legislation did away with the requirement to file an application for a child within two years of their birth and stopped discriminating between children born to a married couple and those born to a common-law couple, it continued to differentiate between children born to a Canadian parent who was born in Canada and those born to a Canadian parent who was born abroad.
Under the 1977 legislation, Canadians who were second-generation or more and were born to parents who were born abroad were required to submit an application in order to keep and confirm their Canadian citizenship.
The legislation required these Canadians to apply by their 28th birthday or they would automatically lose their Canadian citizenship. One of the problems was that, having repealed the requirement for parents to register their children before they turned two, the government no longer had a list it could use to inform the citizens in question that they needed to confirm their citizenship before their 28th birthday. Some of these people who were born abroad returned to Canada, grew up here, worked here, raised a family here, and paid taxes here, all while oblivious to what they needed to do before their 28th birthday in order to avoid losing their citizenship.
Some criticized the government for not doing enough to publicize this requirement both here and abroad, so that citizens would be aware that their citizenship could be taken away. It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that does not mean that a citizen must be familiar with all existing laws. Immigration laws are particularly impenetrable.
In short, many people born while the 1947 law or the 1977 law was in force were at risk of losing their citizenship at some point in their lives without even being notified. They might only find out when they applied for a passport. They are the ones who came to be called the lost Canadians.
This situation came to light largely through the efforts of Don Chapman, a former United Airlines pilot who brought their plight to the attention of the public. Don Chapman discovered that he had lost his citizenship when his father had emigrated to the United States. He demonstrated that this problem affected many Canadians, even some as well known as Roméo Dallaire, and forced the government's hand.
If we think about it, these people suffered the same fate as those whose citizenship is revoked, which happens only if someone committed fraud, made a false representation or knowingly concealed information material to an immigration or citizenship application. This same extreme punishment was being meted out to people who had committed no offence whatsoever.
To remedy the situation, Canada adopted a series of legislative reforms in 2005, 2009 and 2015. Those three attempts notwithstanding, some people still slipped through the cracks. Despite being reformed three times, the act still requires people born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, to reapply for citizenship before they turn 28.
I am confident that this bill will pass unanimously, and at this point I would like to offer my first editorial comment on the bill's background. In the last Parliament, an identical bill, Bill S‑230, was passed unanimously in the Senate, but it did not have time to get to the House because the government called an election in the summer.
When the election was called, what I told my constituents who complained about the cost of the election, which members will recall was estimated at over $600 million, is that there were even more serious but lesser-known costs associated with the election and that was the cost of all the work that was done on a whole pile of bills in the House and committee that ended up being for nothing. Unfortunately, Bill S‑245 is another glaring example of that.
My second editorial comment is about the government's management of immigration in general. As we see here, many reforms were necessary to solve the problem and many citizens have been left in the dark for years. Nothing has changed, and the machine is still broken.
Despite all that, the government is announcing that, because of the labour shortage, it wants to increase the number of newcomers to 500,000 a year, when it is already incapable of managing passports, when applications for permanent residency are piling up and taking forever to be processed, and when it is almost impossible to get a work permit in 12 to 13 months.
When I ask businesses in my riding what would really help them with their workforce issues, the answer is not for the government to add 500,000 people to the waiting list. The answer is for the government to start managing the applications that are already in the pile more effectively.
Simply put, there is no shortage of problems for the immigration department to fix, and Bill S‑245 addresses one of them.
I would like to conclude by humbly inviting the government to finish the work of fixing and improving the immigration department before even considering getting involved in any new project.
1636 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C‑281 introduced by the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. This bill has a relatively long, but rather clear title and, as the member mentioned, it is a good exercise in diction. It is the act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.
In this first hour of second reading of the bill, I will end the suspense right away and say that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I are voting in favour of Bill C‑281. The underlying principle of Bill C‑281 is quite commendable because its provisions seek to better combat human rights violations in the world. I think that Bill C‑281 should definitely be debated, discussed and perhaps improved. I commend the member's openness to the idea of improving this bill in committee. I will even make one or two suggestions in the House that I hope will fuel the work of the committee.
Bill C‑281 proposes changes to four current pieces of legislation and I propose to go over them one by one.
The first act to be amended is the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, more specifically section 10, which lists the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Bill C‑281 would add two obligations for the minister to fulfill every year, that is publishing a report outlining measures that Canada has taken to advance human rights internationally and a list that sets out the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working. In our opinion, the first obligation represents a way of ensuring that when the minister makes an announcement, it is followed by concrete action.
Recently, the Department of Foreign Affairs has not had a shining record of walking the talk. For example, after announcing a freeze on the assets of Russian oligarchs in the spring, it was impossible to subsequently ascertain if they had actually been frozen or who was responsible for the file.
Then, after it was announced that these assets could be liquidated in order to help Ukraine financially, we learned that the bill probably could not be implemented. Simply put, for sanctions to work, just announcing them is not enough; they have to be implemented. The same goes for measures to advance human rights internationally.
As for the list of names of prisoners of conscience, I think it would be worthwhile to ask some experts whether exceptions should be made in terms of making that list public, for instance in the case of political prisoners whose safety could be compromised if their names were published. It might also be worth thinking about a way to allow a group of parliamentarians, for example, to determine whether a name should indeed be excluded. This could be examined by a committee working in camera.
The second act amended by Bill C‑281 is the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, as known as the Magnitsky act.
Bill C‑281 states that the minister must respond to committee recommendations regarding the application of Magnitsky sanctions against an individual and that the minister must table that response within 40 days after the adoption of a report recommending such sanctions or within the time limit specified by the committee. The minister's response must include a response to the committee's recommendations. The minister must indicate whether an order or regulation is to be made and set out the reasons for the decision to impose or not impose sanctions.
This new legislation would ensure a diligent response on the government's part to alleged human rights abuses. It will allow for faster follow-up on committee recommendations than the current standard, which gives the government 150 days to respond and states that the committee can request a response, but there is no obligation. Furthermore, under normal circumstances, the response to a committee report can be “comprehensive”, a term that Speakers of the House have always declined to define. The requirement to set out reasons for a decision is more precise and more in line with the principles of natural justice.
The third act that Bill C‑281 seeks to amend is the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Cluster munitions are weapons made up of a number of submunitions. They scatter a large number of explosive devices over a wide area.
These weapons are notorious for leading to many deaths and serious injuries each year. The victims are often children, since the small, brightly coloured, baseball-sized bombs do not always explode on contact with the ground. They can remain there for many years, even decades, before being handled by children.
This type of weapon is not prohibited under international law, with the exception of using them in built-up civilian areas. However, there is the 2008 Dublin convention, to which 110 countries are party, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, but which countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and the United States have neither signed nor ratified. Canada signed the agreement in 2008, but the legislation allowing for its ratification did not come into force until 2015, and it is precisely this legislation that the current bill, Bill C‑281, seeks to amend.
As currently written, the legislation prohibits all persons from using, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, moving or importing cluster munitions. The amendment broadens the group covered by these prohibitions to include any person or corporation that has a financial interest in a group or person that has committed, aided or abetted a third party in committing the wrongdoing that I have just listed.
We believe that Bill C‑281 is a step in the right direction towards a safer world, especially for children in the long term, but we are aware that the bill may be met with resistance from the American arms lobby, given that many companies still manufacture this type of weapon. We hope that our parliamentary colleagues will not give in to this pressure when it comes time to discuss amendments to the bill and vote on it.
Finally, Bill C‑281 will amend the Broadcasting Act to facilitate the revocation of licences for television or radio broadcasts in Canada when they are influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide, or if these broadcasts are influenced by officials subject to sanctions under the Sergei Magnitsky Law. This bill would give the House the power to use simple motions to block foreign media, if those media are vulnerable to being influenced by entities that have committed crimes. Whether or not the content of these media is neutral or the fact that the content is beyond reproach would not be the basis for the assessment. State media are used to spread ideas, information about a culture, a viewpoint of the country in question, in short to promote a country directly or indirectly. We can think of the example of China and its vaccine diplomacy. China widely publicized the fact that it distributed massive amounts of vaccines in Africa. The purpose was to bolster its image by making people forget about its dubious management at the outset of the pandemic, and also to make people overlook the crimes committed against the Uighurs within its borders.
As for non-neutral content, unfortunately there is no shortage of examples of that, too. The war in Ukraine brought to light the full arsenal deployed by Russia to destabilize Ukraine and NATO through a hybrid war effort, which includes using the media to sow doubt or to destabilize the government by creating internal tensions among citizens. For example, Russian media gave a huge platform to anti-vaccine and anti-health measure conspiracy theorists, especially those who criticized government policies, giving them greater exposure to criticize local governments and whip up public discontent. We have also seen this kind of tactic used on another scale elsewhere in the world. Russian media specifically targeted Canadian soldiers on a mission in Latvia with the aim of discrediting them and stirring up mistrust among locals. This kind of disinformation campaign can go on for years.
Both in cases of neutral content and in the case of content that is explicitly not, banning such a broadcast through a motion does not seem excessive when the country in question is recognized by Parliament as having committed an act of genocide.
For all these reasons, my colleagues and I support the bill at second reading. We hope to have the opportunity to follow its progress through committee, which I am sure will be very interesting.
1502 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. She said that, even though the dental insurance program is not perfect, it is better to send money to people than not send it at all.
With all due respect, I disagree. For example, under this program, families that have insurance cannot collect the benefit even if their insurance does not cover everything, whereas families that pay just a small amount collect the full benefit.
Would it not be more effective to just transfer the money to the provinces, which are in a better position to meet people's dental care needs and can therefore make better use of this money? That would be better than the federal government's misguided approach.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-252, which was introduced by the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
Basically, this bill seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act to specifically prohibit the marketing of “foods and beverages that contribute to excess sugar, saturated fats or sodium in children’s diets” to persons who are under 13 years of age. As a result, this bill specifically targets the marketing of sugary drinks, for the most part. The bill also provides for a review of the results of these measures by a House, Senate or joint committee in five years.
This bill seeks to address a rather serious problem. One need only consider the statistics. A 2016 report by the public health officer for Quebec indicated that 52% of the population, both adults and children, were overweight and that 18% were obese. According to the most optimistic projections, we can expect those numbers to increase to 54% and 21%, respectively, by 2030. That is a rather sharp rise.
If we focus on the statistics for children across Canada, we can see some marked differences over the past decades. For example, between 1978-79 and 2004, the combined prevalence of overweight and obesity among children aged two to 17 increased from 15% to 26%. Increases were highest among youth aged 12 to 17 years, with overweight and obesity more than doubling for this age group, from 14% to 29%.
This is an urgent problem that must be addressed, in light of all of the comorbidities associated with being overweight or obese, such as cardiovascular diseases. These diseases are the first to come to mind, especially since they were the leading cause of death in 2012. Another example is diabetes, which can be connected fairly directly to sugary drinks. Other examples would be various musculoskeletal disorders, such as arthritis, and other degenerative diseases that are generally highly debilitating. I also want to point out the higher prevalence of certain cancers that are comorbid with overweight and obesity, such as endometrial, breast, ovary, prostate, liver, gallbladder, kidney and colon cancers. This is a global problem that will become worse if nothing is done.
The bill specifically addresses advertising aimed at children. It is interesting to look at the impact that advertising can have on children in general. We can see that, without realizing it, our little ones are increasingly being seen as prospective consumers. We tend to forget that. Here are some interesting facts.
As we know, children have both direct and indirect economic power. They influence nearly 40% of family purchases. Direct spending by children is also on a steady rise around the world. In Canada, in 2004, children aged four to 12 influenced $20 billion in family purchases. This is indirect influence. In 2002, four million children aged two to 12 were estimated to have spent $1.5 billion of their pocket money. In 2006, the figure was $3 billion. The same thing is happening in the United States, where the amount doubles from one decade to the next.
We also know that there is a business strategy behind advertising aimed at children. The goal is to build customer loyalty at an early age. We know that, from the age of six months, babies have the ability to form mental images of corporate logos and mascots. By the age of three, one in five American children demand specific brands of products. Of the six brand names most recognized by toddlers, four are from the food industry.
In all, 93% of children aged three to five recognize the McDonald's logo. The fact that they recognize it is one thing, but does it work? Here is an interesting fact. When researchers present children aged three to five with fries in McDonald's packaging and the same fries in other packaging, they systematically prefer the fries in the McDonald's packaging. Clearly, it has an impact.
This takes me back 15 years to when I was starting my law studies. One of the first courses I took, and loved, was a consumer rights course taught by Pierre-Claude Lafond, who encouraged me to pursue my training. We were already seeing the impact of legislation on advertising, such as American drug ads, which are very long and state the name of the drug, what it is used for, its many side effects and more. In contrast, in Canada, companies cannot say both the name of the drug and what it is used for. Ads here encourage people to talk to their doctor.
It is the same thing for children's toys. I remember that when I was very young, I would always change the channel to see American ads because they were so much more interesting to me. As children, we saw toys of all kinds, so it obviously had an impact.
The bill does have its limits. I therefore encourage the committee that will study it, and the committee responsible for the five-year review, to look closely at certain issues.
For this to be effective, for us to really combat obesity and overweight among children, we need to look at more than just advertising. This bill must be part of a broader movement. Take Quebec, for example, which in 2019 introduced an action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and to promote water. Quebec not only has its own legislation to prohibit advertising to kids under 13, it also has its own policy on the subject.
I would remind members that Quebec did not take part in developing any federal framework. If the goal is to create legislation to restrict advertising, it is important that this be done in conjunction with the provinces. The member for Sarnia—Lambton pointed out that kids are less active than they used to be. Everything related to health, in general, falls under provincial jurisdiction. We must therefore ensure co-operation between the federal government, in terms of the Food and Drugs Act, and the provincial jurisdictions. I therefore suggest that this be studied in committee.
As I mentioned to the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, we also need to make sure that we are truly able to eliminate false advertising. That is something that Professor Lafond talked about in the course I took with him.
Quebec has an excellent law, but our consumer protection board, the OPC, which is responsible for monitoring compliance, was unable to keep up with demand. Professor Lafond explained to us that only the most blatant cases were taken off the air because the OPC did not have the necessary resources to deal with all of the requests and complaints. By the way, a complaint has to be filed in order for an ad to be taken off the air.
Since this is a private member's bill and these types of bills generally do not involve any expenditures, perhaps we should consider how the terms of this legislation can be implemented effectively.
It is important to remember that there can always be a sort of grey area between what is considered an ad directed specifically at children and what it not. The industry is quite creative on that score.
In 2019, Quebec produced a report on food advertising directed at children, and it listed several ways that companies get around the law. Think of food in the shape of a toy. To what extent is that an ad directed at children? Think of seasonal packaging and designs based on popular current movies. Are they directed more at children or adults, depending on the film? Think of the use of popular or trademark characters, funny wordplay, and products designed in a smaller size or with a toy included to appeal specifically to children.
What about ads posted in family areas? Are they directed specifically at children? We also have to look at how food is displayed on grocery store shelves. What about the font used in an ad, or references to magic or fantasy? I suggest that all these things be studied by the committee that will be reviewing the bill to make it as effective as possible, or so we hope.
1386 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her speech and her bill.
Problems with bills often arise in their application rather than their intent. Given the amount of advertising these days, I wonder if the member could explain how there would be follow up. In the past, Quebec's consumer protection bureau was inundated with complaints, and there were only enough resources to deal with the most visible cases and have them taken off the airwaves, in certain cases.
I was wondering what kind of resources we can hope for from the bill.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/21 3:41:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to let you know that I intend to share my time with my delightful colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. I would like to wish her a very happy birthday once again. She turned 23 yesterday, so I would again like to wish my colleague a happy birthday.
I hope you do not mind, Madam Speaker, if I take this opportunity to recognize the people who supported me during the campaign this autumn. I am thinking of the family members who, by force of circumstance, have become our most fervent volunteers and our most fervent admirers. I am thinking of our teams around us and, above all, we are thinking of the voters who have given us their trust. As we all know, sometimes we can say that the first time is perhaps an accident, but I can confirm that the second time is a mark of confidence that is appreciated all the more.
My thanks to all the volunteers who worked on my campaign, I see them not only as thanks, but also as a prelude to what I am about to discuss, because this team was on the warpath for months preparing for an election that was coming, we did not know when. That is always what happens in a minority government. They were also called upon to reinvent themselves, according to the somewhat overused term we heard during the pandemic.
We also wondered why the Liberals called an election during a pandemic. In Parliament, we even voted on a motion stating that it was irresponsible to hold an election during a pandemic, but that clearly did not bother the government since it went ahead and called one anyway.
One also has to wonder what has changed so much since the time of the election and now, since during the election it was fine to travel from one province to another and the borders were not closed. What has changed so much that we now need to adopt a hybrid system of Parliament?
As far as I know, things have improved somewhat and some restrictions have been lifted. Restaurants are able to welcome more customers at a time and there are no longer any limits on the number of people allowed at theatres. We stopped limiting the number of people who can go into the grocery store at one time. I do not think that things have gotten so bad that we have to go back to a hybrid system of Parliament.
The current situation is not ideal. The ideal situation would be if there were no pandemic. However, there is one and we must live with it. In this context, I would say that the Bloc's proposal for how we should work during the pandemic is the most balanced and the most reasonable: The 338 members would return in person and everyone would provide proof of double vaccination. That is the closest to what we are seeing in all societies that have put in place strict health measures.
The arguments made by my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook to justify hybrid sittings do not entirely have to do with the pandemic. This further bolsters my belief that we are being fed false arguments and that the pandemic is but a pretext to avoid returning to the House and being accountable to the people we represent. I find that there are false pretenses behind this.
I hear arguments about sick leave, maternity leave or snow storms. I am not saying that those are not legitimate concerns, but now is not the time to be talking about them, and during a pandemic is definitely not the time to be having this debate. Last summer I sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we nailed down the ins and outs of a hybrid Parliament. During our discussions, we said that it was not the time to be making these kinds of arguments for a broader discussion on a hybrid Parliament. I get the feeling that this is what people are doing here today.
The motion will clearly be adopted and the hybrid system will soon be back. People are telling us that a hybrid Parliament is so important because they are worried about their health and want to be safe. I do not think there is any guarantee that the people we see on Zoom will spend the rest of the week in their basement, avoiding meeting with constituents, turning down meetings, not going to bingos or spaghetti suppers, and not campaigning in their ridings while they are supposed to be here, in Parliament.
I really want to stress that hybrid sittings mean we lose the natural, organic contact with our colleagues that we have seen over the course of these four sitting days. We lose the opportunity for one-on-ones with a minister, a colleague, a critic or a fellow parliamentary committee member. That kind of thing is not easy on Zoom.
The same thing happened in parliamentary committees. Not only are Zoom committee meetings more arduous, but they also do not afford members the opportunity to glance at a colleague in a way that says, “Let us meet at the coffee station to discuss something” while still following the conversation. Zoom meetings are not nearly as effective.
I think the biggest downside of all is lack of accountability. That may be why government members are the ones who seem most keen on the hybrid model. Virtual attendance means no reporters waiting for them on their way out of the House of Commons. All they have to do is click on “Leave” to dodge any accountability to the fourth estate, the press.
We also forget the work of the support staff, who we burned out by using the hybrid model. I am thinking about the IT group. We have to tip our hat to them because they performed miracles, but we wore them out by using the hybrid model so much. I am also thinking about the interpreters, whose sound quality during Zoom meetings was quite bad most of the time. We exhausted them as well. Returning to normal would do them a favour.
I am anticipating certain questions, so let me answer them immediately. If I answer them ahead of time, then my colleagues will not need to ask them. I invite them to come up with other questions to ask me.
We have been asked how this will work if the situation deteriorates while we are in normal mode. In that case, we will do the same thing as last time. We will turn things around in 24 hours and bring in a hybrid Parliament, especially now that we already have the necessary technology.
There have also been questions about how we will know if the situation has gotten worse. We will just have to look at what is going on in the provinces and in Quebec. Any new lockdowns would be an indication that the hybrid system should be brought back. It would be a relatively simple and quick process. We already know that it is possible.
There have been questions about members who may be immunocompromised and who may be afraid of coming to Parliament. I do not get the impression that the majority of members of Parliament are immunocompromised. If it turns out that there are members who are immunocompromised, which remains to be proven, they would probably be the exception. By bringing in a hybrid Parliament, the government is enforcing a universal standard to cater to special cases. The standard should be that members come in person because that is why we were elected. These supposedly immunocompromised members, if there are any here, probably campaigned outside of their basements.
We are also hearing the argument that some people have young unvaccinated children and they are worried about bringing COVID-19 home to them. We are about to start vaccinating younger children. Because of that, the argument already holds much less water. However, I would be curious to know whether members who have young children stop them from going to the movies, going to shows and seeing other people. Are they home-schooling to ensure that the children are not at risk? I think that is a fair question.
All that to say that the motion we are debating seems much more bogus. It seems to be using the pandemic for purely political and partisan purposes, and that is what I find really disappointing.
Moreover, the government is already anticipating that this measure will stay in place until June 23, 2022. June 23 is seven months away. If we go back the same amount of time, seven months ago, I could not even get on a waiting list for my vaccine. A lot of water has gone under the bridge in the past seven months. I expect that a lot will happen too. If the government wants to go so far with this right off the bat, surely that just confirms how partisan this measure is.
1525 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
