SoVote

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/10/22 5:17:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight to speak to this extremely important issue. I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with our wonderful whip, the member for Salaberry—Suroît. I will read the Conservatives' motion, which is quite short and pretty self-explanatory, because I want people to have a clear understanding of what we are talking about today. I am really addressing my comments to the people back home because, as it is plain to see, Quebeckers are all fed up. They have had enough of health measures in general and are eager to move on. I hear it a lot at home, just like everywhere else. Therefore, it is to them that I speak today. I will read the motion: That, given that provinces are lifting COVID-19 restrictions and that Dr. Theresa Tam has said that all existing public health measures need to be “re-evaluated” so that we can “get back to some normalcy”, the House call on the government to table a plan for the lifting of all federal mandates and restrictions, and to table that plan by February 28, 2022. It is not a bad motion. In fact, it is a very good motion, seeking some predictability. We have not had any for such a long time, for two years, with everything that has been put in place by the federal government. We understand that this is a unique situation. I will refer to a tweet that I saw from a Quebec comedian I will call Louis T. He says that asking for a concrete plan is like asking the Weather Network to tell us exactly what the weather will be like in the next few days so that we do not have to worry about unpredictability and know when we can wear shorts. We understand that it would be a bit of a stretch to ask for a clear picture of what is going to happen, because even the government does not know. We all saw it. When omicron hit us hard just before the holidays, it seemed like things were going well. Parliament here was full. We thought that we had put much of the pandemic behind us, but then it started up again. I myself caught COVID-19 over the holidays. I can say that it was no fun at all. I was pretty sick for 10 days, so we never know what can happen. We understand what the government means when it says we need to be cautious and listen to public health guidelines. We completely agree and are calling for that as well. We must listen to public health guidelines and reassess measures that are no longer relevant. That is what provincial governments are mostly doing now. That is what is happening in Quebec. Things are moving gradually. The Legault government did not announce that all measures would be lifted overnight. That is not how it works. He gave dates for restaurants or theatres to reopen, for example, or for when it might be possible to have more guests in private residences. People have an idea of what is coming. I think that gives hope to the people who are tired of all this. Knowing that we will be able to start having guests over and see our families gives people some joy. It is good for them. Just hearing that can make people feel more positive. This is not about getting a date to lift all federal measures. Not at all. This is about wanting a plan so that we know what is coming. I completely agree with the Conservatives. I think we and all Quebeckers and Canadians need to know what is coming. This week we learned that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are not alone in thinking this. The member for Louis-Hébert thinks so as well. He called on the government to develop a clear plan for moving forward. That reminds me of what is happening outside. At first, people said that perhaps the protesters did not know enough about why the health measures were in place, and that perhaps it had not been properly explained to them. In Quebec, we have seen the Legault government giving almost weekly updates and explaining why each measure is important, why it is in place and when it might be lifted. I have not seen the federal government do as much of that in the last few months or years of the pandemic. It would introduce a measure, then say that it was not really based on public health recommendations, but that it was implementing it anyway. We saw this several times. People are wondering why. They are wondering what is going on, and they are not necessarily getting any reassurances. I think it would be good to come up with a reopening plan and to really explain why today, it is good to have border restrictions, and why in three weeks, for example, it might be all right to lift them. The reasons need to be explained. We do not want people to feel as if they have been working hard for two years for nothing, because the number of cases is still high. We do not want them to think that we have decided to lift the restrictions just because everyone is fed up. I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say several times that we really need to listen to public health and not give in to pressure. I am thinking about the truckers' convoy right now. It is not a public health advisory, and I liked what the minister said, even though I do not always agree with what Liberal ministers say. It is true that we have to go by what public health says and we must listen to the experts. I think we have reached a turning point where we are able to reassess what has been implemented. Today I was listening to some of the speeches by Conservative colleagues, who took the opportunity to talk about the rules and health measures in place in the provinces, as well as vaccination. Some are against vaccination, but I do not think that the House is the ideal place to talk about that. It is time to call for a clear plan. There are not that many federal measures compared to the provincial measures. At the federal level, we are talking about measures that were put in place at the borders, which, again, benefit everyone: the use of ArriveCAN, the requirement to show proof of vaccination for travellers and, obviously, for truckers at the border, the PCR screening tests, quarantine in the federally mandated quarantine hotels that everyone will recall, the requirement to show proof of vaccination on federally regulated modes of transportation such as train or ships, mask wearing in federal buildings, and, of course, the vaccine mandate for employees of the public service. It is not like we need to look at a hundred measures. I think is reasonable enough to wonder whether the numbers from the past few months prove that these measures have yielded tangible results and whether, given the current percentage of the population that is vaccinated, we could, if not lift the lockdown, at least relax the restrictions a bit. I think those are some of the questions we should be asking to give our struggling businesses some predictability. I am thinking of businesses in the tourism, hospitality and aerospace industries, which are very much affected by these measures, particularly the border measures. We need to give them a game plan to tell them when they can start thinking about all of that again. We have seen how hard the Quebec government's measures have been on restaurants, which were given 24 hours' notice that they would have to close or a few days' notice that they could reopen. It has not always been easy for them to change tack so quickly. If the federal government could come up with a plan with specific dates, I think that would help them prepare as best as possible to get back to business. I also wanted to talk about another point the member for Louis-Hébert raised, and that is health transfers. The Bloc Québécois has been talking about health transfers non-stop for the past two years, to the the point where I am wondering why the federal government has not taken any action on that, since it must be sick of hearing us talking about transfers. Furthermore, the Conservatives have joined our call in recent weeks, as have the NDP and the provinces through the Council of the Federation, which met recently. Once again, the request is unanimous. We will keep talking about it, but I think enough has been said and the federal government has heard sufficient sound arguments to finally agree to this request. Why are lockdowns needed? It is because our health care systems are incapable of dealing with the impact of COVID-19. We have seen this in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. Increasing health transfers is crucial for the future because, as I said, the omicron variant hit us without warning, and there is no guarantee that we will be insulated from another pandemic or another variant. Our health care systems must be ready to deal with them. The federal government has a duty to transfer money to the provinces and Quebec. I think this is a fairly legitimate request, since it is clear that our health care professionals have been stretched thin for months if not years. They need a little help, and I think the federal government could provide it. I see my time is running out. I would have liked to speak to a number of other issues, but our whip will perhaps be able to fill in the gaps later, in her speech. I would be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

1690 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 5:27:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to imply that there is no plan is somewhat misleading. I believe there has been a plan right from the very beginning. Six weeks to two months ago, no one could have anticipated that the Province of Quebec would institute a curfew, for example, to deal with omicron. The issue is that the pandemic is far from being over. I wonder if the member, in principle, believes that the principles she is trying to apply to Ottawa should also apply to provincial jurisdictions. Does she believe that the provinces have plans? If not, should they all be providing a plan before the end of the month?

108 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/10/22 5:28:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said a little earlier, Quebec definitely has a plan, which was announced this week. We have also seen Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario announce plans to reopen not too far down the road. Other countries, such as Denmark, France, England and Sweden are on track to completely lift their health measures. At least, they have announced their intention to do so. That is all we are asking the federal government to do. We agreed with the measures applied at the border, and the Bloc Québécois really insisted that the federal government take the appropriate steps at our borders to ensure the safety of Canadians. However, at this stage, I think we can reassess the measures in place, and we need to show Canadians this is being done.

134 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 5:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, many decisions have been made throughout the pandemic, and when politicians made them without the backstop of good medical advice, they were tragic. We saw this last summer in Alberta. In fact, we saw it in some form even here in Ontario. Quebec, fortunately, has had good leadership. We want a concrete plan from the Prime Minister and the federal government, but does the member agree that the plan has to have the backstop of good medical advice on what we should be doing next, before politicians in this place can give Canadians the answer they are looking for?

101 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/10/22 5:30:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. That is exactly what we have been asking for from the beginning: that the government listen to the public health authority. That is stated in the motion itself. Dr. Theresa Tam stated that all existing public health measures need to be re-evaluated. We are not saying that the plan must specify the date on which each measure will be lifted. That is not the case. We are asking that if public health officials say that the border measures must be lifted, but that we must wait two more months to do it, that must be stated in the plan so we have an idea of what to expect in the short and medium terms. We are asking that this be done by listening to what public health authorities have to say. Naturally the decision must not be a political one; it must come from the public health authority.

158 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/10/22 5:31:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. It lets us reframe the Conservatives' request today. It is fine to throw out a request for a plan to lift health restrictions, but what exactly does that look like? My colleague outlined all the elements involved, which, for the most part, are the responsibility of the provinces. I feel that the provinces have done their job in this matter. Quebec, in any case, really did its job. What is missing are the health transfers going forward, that is to say the increase from 22% to 35% we are asking for. We are not going to back down. She spoke about this as well. I would like her to answer the following questions. Why did the Conservatives move this motion today? Why are we spending the day on this? Is it public pressure, is it the trucks in the streets? What does she believe to be the reason for this?

159 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 5:32:25 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has just five seconds to answer.

20 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/10/22 5:32:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. It is a little hard to discern the Conservatives' position. We have heard the potential future leader of the Conservatives demanding freedom and encouraging the convoy. However, we have also heard other Conservatives—

42 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 5:32:54 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

10 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/10/22 5:32:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, because we in the Bloc Québécois have a terrific team. I will try not to repeat what she said, but I agree with everything she did say, which I support. I do not know if this has been done today, but I would still like to take the time to extend my condolences and sympathies to the 35,000 families who have lost loved ones to COVID‑19 in the last two years. We sometimes forget that these people went through a human tragedy and lost someone dear to them. I would also like to take a few moments to quickly thank the health care workers in both the public and community systems. When we talk about the public health care system, we talk a lot about nurses and assistants, but there are also all of the other professionals in the system who help keep it running day after day so that care can be provided, not only to people with COVID-19, but also to those who need treatment or surgery for other health problems. I therefore want to say a big thank you to public and community health care workers. My riding shares a border with the United States and is home to four border crossings: Dundee, Herdman, Hemmingford and Trout River. I would therefore especially like to thank the border officers, whom I have been talking to. They have sometimes had to grapple with instructions that were not very clear and implement health measures without the help of suitable tools or sufficient time to prepare. Their job has not always been easy. They have had to deal with travellers and people, including some of my constituents, who are having trouble getting across the border to visit their families in New York state. There are a lot of people who have been and still are having trouble because of their family situation or because they live close to the border. I therefore want to thank our border officers and express my sympathy to the people in my riding who have struggled because of the pandemic but also because of problems getting across the border to see loved ones or help sick family members. We have not talked very much about our border officers, so I wanted to mention them, because they played an important role during the pandemic. I agree with my colleague that our knowledge about the virus has grown. From what we have learned from public health, we see that it is time to reassess all the measures that have been put in place to fight the pandemic and stop the spread of the virus. Today's motion appears to acknowledge that the provinces are easing lockdowns and have their own plans and to get the federal government to work in tandem with the provinces. The idea is to give the businesses, which suffered the most, a federal plan with a timeline for when they can expect to get back to a more normal schedule and to give people an idea of when they will be able to access services or see measures lifted. As my colleague pointed out, the motion does not say that all measures will be lifted on February 28. I think that would be irresponsible. Naturally, even after the plan is presented, some measures, like masks, will remain. Even if that requirement were lifted, I would be uncomfortable flying without a mask. I think we will have to learn to live with masks. However, I think we need to reassess everything. As I was reflecting on today's debate, I remembered something that many other members in the House have noted. The current government has a hard time communicating its own directives and is slow to do so. This was clear over the past two years when we had to push the federal government to announce, implement and explain measures. There is currently some confusion between federal and provincial measures, which are clear as mud. Some public restrictions are imposed by the provinces while others are imposed by the federal government. There is confusion and people are noticing a lack of consistency as well. Here is one example. Let us say that I had COVID-19 and I go to Punta Cana. If I had COVID-19 and I go to Punta Cana, I can cross the border without having to get a PCR or any other kind of COVID test for six months. However, if I have three doses of the vaccine, I have to provide proof of vaccination and test results. People do not understand this discrepancy. Perhaps there is some scientific basis for the fact that, if a person had COVID-19, they do not have to be tested for six months, but if they have three doses of the vaccine, they still have to be tested to cross the border. I am not a scientist, but what I do know is that people are confused. They do not understand this measure. People do not understand why, if they travel with an unvaccinated child under the age of five, the child has to isolate for 14 days when they return. In Quebec, children under the age of 5 with COVID-19 symptoms have to isolate for five days. When they no longer have a fever, they can go back to school or day care. There are some guidelines that seem inconsistent, and pandemic fatigue is being exacerbated by these inconsistencies. People are frustrated and, as my colleague said, we get that. In Quebec in particular, 80% of people have received two doses of the vaccine. People feel as though they have done their part. Things are tense right now. It is as if there are two camps: the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. People are starting to say that the unvaccinated are bad and the vaccinated are good. I do not agree with that at all because I do not believe that the world is black and white. There are people who cannot get vaccinated. Constituents have called my office to explain that they were waiting to receive a medical assessment to get their medical exemption. When people talk about the unvaccinated, they feel wrongly judged, and this is creating a bad social climate right now. It is high time we thought about this and maybe came up with a plan. I think it is important for us to say this today. I have heard many members talk in their speeches of health measures that are under provincial jurisdiction rather than talking about the ones that are the federal government's responsibility. Basically, the measures we are talking about today are not the ones that affect people on a daily basis, unless we count federal public servants. We are talking about measures that affect those who cross the border by train or by boat, or those who want to travel. This is about the border issue. The measures people are fed up with are mostly the ones that are under provincial jurisdiction. There is some confusion. Once again, I think that if the provinces and other countries were able to come up with plans, it is high time the federal government also presented its own plan, to ensure that it coordinates and aligns its efforts with the provinces. I will conclude by saying that I dream of a country, a country that manages its borders, takes sole and full responsibility for the management of its borders, and manages its own areas of jurisdiction. That would be much simpler, because there would be less confusion. In the meantime, in Quebec, we will continue to demand our due, which is to get back the money that we pay to Ottawa, so we can pay for our health care and build a strong and robust system to help and support all our citizens.

1335 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/10/22 5:42:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague made an interesting allusion at the end of her speech when she talked about the country and about the advantages proper border management would afford in providing more consistent health care. It probably would have been a very good thing for Quebec to be independent during the pandemic, particularly during the previous waves. My colleague also ended her speech by talking about health transfers. When we talk about increasing health transfers to 35% in a region like mine, it means, on a per capita basis, at least $120 million per year in predictable transfers for the CISSSAT. The government has the opportunity to take action and help our health care system. Will it heed this urgent call for help? Does my colleague believe that the Prime Minister will show some leadership and finally call a premiers' summit?

142 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/10/22 5:43:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. I do not get the sense that the Prime Minister understands the urgency of the situation. This gives me an opportunity to explain to him that all of the provincial premiers are calling for a 35% increase in funding because it is not Dr. Tam or her team or the Public Health Agency of Canada that provides care in hospitals, long-term care facilities and private residences. Quebec health care workers are the ones who do that and, right now, the Quebec government is crying for help. It cannot fulfill all of its responsibilities and provide the level of service required because Ottawa is holding back a portion of the money collected from Quebeckers. Ottawa wants to give the money back with strings attached, and that is unacceptable.

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 5:44:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to my hon. colleague. Obviously we are here talking about COVID protocols, but consider what we are seeing in Ottawa and, indeed, what we are seeing around the country. It is being reported that this is more than just a protest. This is a coordinated effort to occupy critical infrastructure across the country. It is having a major impact on our cross-border trade. It is a crazy disruption to residents downtown. Indeed, even this morning, as I was flying back to Nova Scotia, there was a coordinated effort to create disruption at the Ottawa International Airport. Would the member agree with me in the sense that this is moving beyond a protest to a coordinated effort, almost in the mode of an insurrection, such that it is becoming a national security issue and has to be dealt with as such?

150 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/10/22 5:45:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to say that what has been happening on the Hill over the past two weeks shows a real lack of leadership from the Liberal government. I think that things are crystal clear. Mistakes were made. No crisis task force was put together in advance when it was known that the trucks were coming. A crisis task force should have been set up, and all the various stakeholders should have been brought together to come up with an operational plan. Now we find ourselves in such a serious situation that any action taken will also need to be quite serious. This is sad, because the government could have done things differently. I have noticed somewhat of a pattern with the Prime Minister. I will not say the word I have in mind, because it may not be parliamentary, but I do find that he lacks leadership. I expected him to be someone who would mobilize people. All the opposition party leaders offered to call a truce, come together and collaborate on finding a solution. However, this was flatly rejected. I do not understand, and I will say that, honestly, what we are going through right now is because of the Prime Minister’s lack of leadership. He is responsible for the current situation.

218 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 5:47:08 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable for a brief question.

15 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/10/22 5:47:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues for supporting this motion. I think that my Bloc colleagues feel that the people in their ridings are also desperate to see a leader re-emerge to put an end to this whole situation we are currently in. Some awful things have been done. We oppose them, and we condemn them. It is absolutely incredible. However, a lot of misinformation has been spread in the House today. They say that we are asking that all measures be—

94 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 5:47:49 p.m.
Watch

Order. I allowed the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable time for a brief question. The time is now up. The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

33 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/10/22 5:47:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that I understand the question that was coming. I think that we sometimes cut corners in our speeches, and I think that our colleagues opposite would have us believe that the Conservatives are demanding an immediate end to all measures as of February 28. That is petty politics. I think that today there was a great opportunity to say that it is time to work together, to join forces and to help the government with ideas so that it can come up with a plan—

90 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 5:48:29 p.m.
Watch

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

10 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Feb/10/22 5:48:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. Should we tolerate them? Let us think about that for a moment. That is not a statement that was made by some extremist. This is a statement that was made by the Prime Minister of this country. Should we tolerate them? Who is he speaking about? He is speaking about fellow Canadian citizens, some of our neighbours, some of our friends, people who chose not to get a vaccine. We do not know why they made that decision, but the Prime Minister of this country is asking us, should we tolerate them? I think that is deplorable. What this has done, along with other comments he has made, is fanned the flames of division in this country. Imagine a person is at home. They have chosen not to get a vaccine and then they hear their Prime Minister asking if they should be tolerated. This is the division and the nasty politics that the Prime Minister of this country has brought to Canada. It is pitting Canadians against each other. Why did he do it? That is a great question. The member for Louis-Hébert shed some light on that. It was for partisan advantage. We should all think about that for a second. We should think about how the Prime Minister of this country would say something like that because he thought it would give him a political advantage. Let us talk about some of the people that the Prime Minister questions whether he and other Canadians should tolerate. I received an email from a constituent in my riding. Her son is in his twenties and he is a construction worker. He had to make a choice: get a vaccine or lose his job. He had a young family to support, so he made the decision to get a vaccine. Unfortunately, he had terrible side effects from the vaccine. We know these side effects are rare, but they do happen. All of the people in his friend group were then scared and did not want to get a vaccine. The Prime Minister is asking if we should tolerate them. I had someone in my office who has a complicated medical history. Her doctor told her she should not get a vaccine. She does not qualify for the exemptions that have been put in place. They are extraordinarily narrow if one wants to work in this place. That is fine. The government gets to make that choice. She was terrified to get a vaccine. She was worried about what would happen to her based on the advice from her doctor. We often get lectured by members on that side of the House to follow the science. I can tell members that she was following the science. Fortunately for her, she can work remotely. We were able to do that for her, but like the member for Louis-Hébert said, not all of us can work from a laptop at a cottage. Again, those who cannot are losing their jobs. When I rose in this place to speak about this earlier this week, giving a member's statement, and I said there are people who are losing their jobs because they did not get vaccinated, members on that side of the House shouted “good”. I am not surprised by that considering the divisive rhetoric that comes from them and the demonization of people without knowing their circumstances. Why would they be so emboldened to act like that? I have a great reason. Their leader, the Prime Minister, asked if we should tolerate them. I think it is despicable. Where are we now as a country? There was a recent poll that came out that said 25% of Canadians would support putting unvaccinated people in jail and 37% of Canadians would say it is okay that they do not get public health if they are sick. They feel that way because words matter, and words from the most powerful position in this country matter even more. Canadians have been told by the Prime Minister that if they do not get vaccinated, they are racist or misogynist, and he asks if we should tolerate them. That is where we have ended up in this country: divided, angry, pitting neighbour against neighbour. This is not how this country should be run. It is not how this country should be led. It is not how we are in it together in this pandemic. When we talk about this motion, what we are asking for is a plan to give people hope that there is an end in sight. We are not asking for something radical. We are asking for a plan to lift restrictions. If nobody else was doing it or no other country in the world was doing it, perhaps there could be some questions. However, that is not the case. Countries around the world are doing this, because they are recognizing this is now an endemic and we are going to have to live with the virus. Medical officers all across the country have said this. This is not some radical Conservative idea, as much as that is how Liberals will try to paint it. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Czech Republic, the U.K., Spain and Israel are all putting forward plans to lift restrictions, or they have lifted restrictions. Why are we not doing it? Why are we not planning? I have heard the speeches from the members opposite today. They say it is impossible to make a plan because things change and that we should talk to the experts. Yes, do that. Talk to the experts who are saying that we now have to make the decision to live with this, and let us plan for that. Is it so hard for the Liberals to say? They have made plans before and provincial governments have made plans and had to change them, but their answer is that it is really hard to make the plans so they are not going to do it. Canadians deserve better than that. Canadians deserve leadership. Leadership starts with the Prime Minister, and not the kind of leadership he has displayed over the last several months with vilification, demonization and pitting Canadians against each other. What I say to my friends on that side of the House is this: They have an opportunity now to actually lead, to show some leadership and come up with a plan, to let Canadians know there is actually hope at the end of the tunnel and be a unifying factor for us. I ask Liberal members to please support this motion and come up with a plan so that Canadians know, at some point, they can get back to their lives.

1144 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 28