44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 1, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak today, and I would like to say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill for several reasons. Obviously, designating the first Monday in August as food day in Canada is a good idea because, at that time, farmers will have just finished haying and the potato harvest is beginning. Thus, it is a very good time to have it. It is also an opportunity to address concerns that are often ignored, which is why such a day is so important.
As a society, we make the mistake of taking the agri-food and agricultural sectors in Quebec and Canada for granted. It would be a good idea to promote them more, to celebrate local food and local cuisine. The country is celebrated first and foremost around the table. It is the same all over the country, so this is a great opportunity to highlight that aspect of our happiness on this land.
Obviously, the pandemic has opened our eyes to serious problems with our food sovereignty, for example in our production chains. As a result, we have discovered that we are highly and seriously dependent on foreign countries for many aspects of our industries.
At the Bloc Québécois, obviously the agriculture and agri-food sector has always been a priority. In Quebec, we are constantly investing in food sovereignty, including by promoting our supply management system and ensuring it is protected. It is an indispensable tool for balancing our agri-food market and a system that is used as a model in several countries around the world. Canada may once again benefit from referring to Quebec on the matter. I do not mean that as a boast; well, maybe a little bit.
There are several ways to go about promoting food sovereignty in Quebec and Canada when it comes to agri-food. First, we need to secure our food chains by changing course with the temporary foreign workers program, for example. We need to make it easier for workers to access our lands. We could promote succession planning in agriculture, for example, by bringing into force Bill C‑208 on taxing the intergenerational transfer of businesses because it is much easier for a farmer to sell to a stranger than to hand over his business to his own son, which is not right. The son invests in his parents' farm his whole life, but they are unable to hand it over because the way the taxation is done does not favour that. We need to help producers and processors innovate and become resilient to climate change. We need to protect critical resources and agriculture and processing facilities from foreign investments, including under the Investment Canada Act. We need to promote human-scale farms by encouraging buying organic and buying local.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute my riding's diverse and exciting agri-food industry, which produces berries, potatoes, ice cider, wine, beer, mouth-watering cheeses and organic pork and poultry on farms all over Île d'Orléans and along the Côte‑de‑Beaupré. Throughout my riding, from Beauport to Baie‑Sainte‑Catherine, our producers' reputation is well established. I could talk about them all afternoon. It would make my colleagues hungry. It is suppertime, after all.
Now I want to talk about an equally important aspect of the agri-food landscape: seafood. Surprisingly, it is easier to buy Quebec's products in the United States or in Europe than in Quebec. Are my colleagues aware that people in Quebec and Canada consume just over 10% of the seafood our fishers harvest and that 90% of the seafood Quebeckers and Canadians consume comes from other countries?
That is appalling. As if that were not bad enough, the food safety and traceability standards that apply to fishers in Quebec and Canada, who export 90% of our resource to Europe and the United States, are significantly higher than those that apply to the imported products that make up 90% of the seafood we eat. We ship our high-quality products out, and then we eat lower-quality things from other countries. That is appalling; it makes my skin crawl.
Simply put, the quality of the food we eat in Canada is not as good as the food we export and that we supply to the international market. Quebeckers and Canadians deserve better.
Following a motion that I moved for that purpose, my fine colleagues on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, whom I thank for their valuable contributions, and I began a study on labelling and traceability. Many observations were made, some of which were worrisome, others alarming, and still others encouraging. Many solutions, approaches and suggestions were also proposed. All of this resulted in the tabling in the House in June of a report entitled “Traceability and Labelling of Fish and Seafood Products”. The government must urgently implement the committee's 13 recommendations and take real action, not just say that it has taken note of these recommendations, but actually take action.
If we want to know what we are eating and where it came from, we need better labelling and better traceability, from farm to plate for agriculture and also from boat to plate for the fisheries.
Our local products deserve to be in the spotlight. If a chef describes a menu item as “St. Lawrence halibut stuffed with northern deepwater prawns from Matane, Quebec black garlic butter and medley of local Charlevoix vegetables”, people go crazy for it. If it is described as just “shrimp-stuffed halibut”, it is not as popular. That is why it is important to promote our local products and to make them available. I think that is crucial.
When people go to restaurants, they want to eat local, they want to taste locally caught fish. When we eat foods from Quebec and Canada, we appreciate our artisans' and our experts' skill. It sustains us to take pride in discovering the quality of the homegrown products available to us and the often distinctive and exemplary practices of our food producers. We know it will be fresh. We know it is from here. We know minimal food miles mean less pollution. We know our money stays here and helps our own fishers and farmers, who, in turn, spend that money here. Buying local is all about the circular economy, and it is good for everyone. It tastes good, and it is good for society, too.
I also want to talk about by-catch. I had a jarring experience that made no sense in terms food sovereignty, and I have yet to recover from it. Fishermen have permits to fish for shrimp, for example. If they catch some halibut, redfish or squid, they are forced to take the dead fish and throw it overboard, because their permit is for shrimp. It is terrible.
In the Gaspé, if someone wants to have some fresh, local fish, they are told it is impossible. The fish they are serving comes from Norway and the shrimp comes from China. I still cannot believe it. I want the House to be aware of this very important aspect. Perhaps permits could be expanded and made more flexible, so that fishermen with by-catch could redistribute it in the area.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has done a lot of studies. We are completing a study on the right whale and are starting to realize that the expertise and knowledge of our fishers are not always truly taken into consideration. They are not always closely listened to, and yet they have concrete solutions to better understand the right whale.
In closing, everyone has to eat, so we might as well do so responsibly, taking into account our environmental footprint and the social and economic impacts of our choices.
Let us be proud of our local products, our producers, farmers, fishers and food artisans. Let us promote their products, within a balance of supply and demand, before opening up to foreign markets, which are necessary, of course, although they must not control our own supply or affect our market prices, since that would have a serious impact on our food sovereignty.
1405 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I count it an honour to stand in support of Bill S-227, an act to establish food day in Canada.
With everything going on in our world, one thing that I think we all recognize, collectively, or at least should, is the absolutely critical importance of food security and energy security, which go hand in hand. For any nation to have stability over the long haul, to be a beacon of safety and a haven of hope for many, as Canada is, it has to have tremendous potential for ongoing and lasting energy security and food security.
Tonight my remarks will be more focused on the food security aspect as it relates to this bill. I think it is wonderful that we have set apart a day and some time to reflect and highlight the importance of food and food security, and what it brings to our country and to the world.
Food security and the importance of food and proper nutrition is critical for our world. In fact, it has been reported of late that, any time the overall calorie intake of individuals drops below 1,800 on a national level, it could lead to civil unrest. In the spring, we saw echos of that in Sri Lanka, and we are seeing it increasingly around the world.
We must get the food security question right. We must have the answer for that. I believe Canada is extremely well positioned to help answer the world's cry for safe, secure, nutritious and beneficial food and nutrition. We have got to get more Canadian goods to the world. We have to do that by making sure that the environment here in Canada is one that accentuates the opportunities for Canada's growers, producers and harvesters. I would add, it is not just the farmers we want to remember. Obviously, they are going to be the overwhelming lion's share of our focus, but it is also the fish harvesters on the coasts of Canada and throughout our country who help provide protein resources and fresh fish products to the world and here at home.
We must make sure that food security, those who produce our food and those who harvest our food are considered in our policy directives and in the deliberations of the House, and that we make sure that, any time we are looking at enacting new policies or regulations, the voices of those who literally grow our food, keep our land and harvest our food, are heard and are respected. We must make sure that there is proper consultation with those who are closest to our food production in this country, namely our farmers, growers and fish harvesters.
This day would provide all of Canada an opportunity to reflect. It would provide all of Canada an opportunity to say thanks for their ability to grow food, thanks to the producers for making it possible for us to eat on a regular basis, and to have good, pure, nutritious food grown right here in Canada. That day being set aside for Canadians to reflect is helpful, good and beneficial.
More so than just a day being set aside, what we need is a government in Canada that prioritizes those who actually grow and produce our food, making sure their concerns are being heard in this, the people's House, the people's chamber. I am blessed to come from an agricultural riding. I am very proud of Tobique—Mactaquac and the region I represent. I have a lot of farming country. We are known for our potatoes. We are known for a lot of great things. We have fruit growers and vegetable growers. We have people who grow grain products. We have so many who contribute to Canada's agriculture.
Products from our riding go literally all around the world. For that, I am so thankful for the farmers and producers in my region of Tobique—Mactaquac, who help feed not only the folks in New Brunswick and across Canada but also folks around the world.
I will close with this, and I can never adequately do justice to this man and his voice. However, members will remember the legendary Paul Harvey who is known for The Rest Of The Story. I cannot speak like he does nor with the eloquence, but I hope members will indulge me to briefly highlight some of the speech that made him famous. All of us will remember it. It even made a Super Bowl ad.
It reads:
And on the 8th day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need a caretaker”. So God made a farmer.
God said, “I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper and then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board.” So God made a farmer.
“I need somebody with arms strong enough to rustle a calf and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild. Somebody to call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry....” So God made a farmer.
God said, “I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt. And watch it die. Then dry his eyes and say, 'Maybe next year.' I need somebody who can shape an ax handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of car tire, who can make harness out of haywire, feed sacks and shoe scraps. And who, planting time and harvest season, will finish his forty-hour week by Tuesday noon, then, pain'n from 'tractor back,' put in another seventy-two hours.” So God made a farmer.
I thank God for the farmers.
972 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to conclude the debate at second reading of Bill S-227.
The story of food day in Canada did not start in the House and it did not start in the other place where it was first introduced. The story of food day in Canada started in the dark days of the summer of 2003 when the agriculture industry, the beef industry in particular, was wreaked with havoc due to the BSE crisis.
In those dark days of the agriculture industry in 2003, one person stood up and said, “Let's do something positive.” That one person was Anita Stewart. She celebrated the first food day in Canada back in 2003, and Bill S-227 now honours that legacy, commends the resiliency of Canadian farmers and celebrates everyone who contributes to the world-class agriculture and agri-food system in Canada.
I want to thank the members who have spoken in favour of this bill during this debate, including the members for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, Tobique—Mactaquac, Berthier—Maskinongé, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Vimy and Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.
I want to especially thank Senator Rob Black for introducing this bill in the other place and the members for Wellington—Halton Hills and Guelph who also gave passionate speeches in this place about the history of food day in Canada, Wellington County's Anita Stewart and her lifetime of work to promote Canadian food. I know that her sons, Jeff, Mark, Brad and Paul, would be grateful to see their late mother recognized in such a way.
I am pleased to know that Bill S-227 has the support of so many members in the House, perhaps even unanimously, and I look forward to seeing this bill passed at second reading. I also hope members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food will find a way to ensure that the bill passes with all haste when it comes to committee.
As I mentioned in the House, food day in Canada has been informally recognized in Wellington County, in some rural communities and in some large cities across Canada for nearly 20 years. We now have the chance and the opportunity to pass Bill S-227 in the House and formally recognize food day in Canada across Canada.
424 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:15:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:16:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to further debate the government's second carbon tax: the clean fuel standard. As I alluded to in my initial question, it would be unconscionable for the government to proceed with introducing a second carbon tax, one with limited efficacy, at a time when Canadians are facing incredible financial hardship. This is no game. It is very real.
I ask the hon. member to pretend for a moment to be a pensioner living in Atlantic Canada where most people use oil to heat their homes. This new tax will further increase the cost during a long, cold winter.
Perhaps my colleague could imagine being part of a family of four in downtown Toronto as they dread the weekly trip to the grocery store. Food inflation is at 11.4%. It is the highest in 40 years. Half of Canadians, me included, have only ever known this to be the highest in their lifetime. People are struggling to put food on the table and some are going without a meal. Canadians also worry about being able to make their rent payment or their monthly mortgage payment.
Can the hon. member please explain why the government would want to proceed with a second carbon tax that will increase household energy costs by up to 6.5%? That is an additional annual cost of $1,277.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege to stand in the House tonight to address concerns from my colleague.
I remember back to about a year ago when the member ran for the Liberal Party and I knocked on doors with him. He ran on a commitment to price carbon, and it was welcomed at the doors, as it is welcomed across our country. Canadians know that pollution should not be free. Canadians know that things like cap and trade, a price on pollution and, indeed, carbon pricing are a necessary foundation in a proper environmental platform.
At the time, the member was also proud of that platform, so I am not sure where he is going with this, but I am indeed really proud of the fact that for seven years now, our government has been putting forward real solutions and measures to help middle-class Canadians and those who have worked so hard to join them.
We have introduced and implemented measures that have helped grow the economy. We have created jobs and we have created a fair and more level playing field for Canadians across the country. We understand that rising prices, which we are seeing around the world, are also affecting Canadians across the country. However, high inflation is a global phenomenon. It is not limited to us here in Canada. It is mostly caused by the war in Ukraine and various other supply chain disruptions.
While it is not a made-in-Canada problem, we have a made-in-Canada solution to help those who need it the most. For example, now that Bill C-30 has received royal assent, individuals and families receiving the GST credit will receive an additional $2.5 billion in support. Over 11 million households will receive a doubling of that GST credit in the coming weeks. Actually, I believe it is this Friday.
Also, with Bill C-31 we are proposing to create a Canada dental benefit for children under 12, which will deliver $1,300 over the next few years in supports so that families can pay for their kids to go and see a dentist. The bill also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program, which already provides up to $2,500 to Canada's most vulnerable and lowest-income families who are renting. This will increase it by $500 and put that in the pockets of nearly two million renters who are struggling to pay their rent.
The member for Spadina—Fort York can certainly recognize the impacts these measures will have for Canadians in his riding. Many of them are indeed struggling to make ends meet, and these measures will help.
Later this week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will release the fall economic statement, which will lay out some of the steps our government will take toward a brighter future for our country.
When it comes to the clean fuel regulations and pollution pricing, I would remind my colleague of the importance of continuing to work on the green transition while doing everything we can to make life more affordable in this country.
I spent some considerable time in the riding of my colleague. The fact is, his constituents are concerned about the impacts of climate change. His constituents were disappointed when Premier Doug Ford cancelled cap and trade, and his constituents were relieved when the federal government stepped in with supports.
I just got off the phone with a constituent who had valid questions about the price on pollution. As I explained it to him, this is a backstop program for provinces that do not have a plan to fight climate change. Previous to this, the province of Ontario had a $3-billion program. That was a revenue program for the province, called cap and trade, and unfortunately Doug Ford scrapped it. That is illegal. Every province and territory is bound by law to have a plan to fight climate change and to price pollution accordingly. The simple truth is that climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate. It is an economic necessity. Our government has a plan that will save the planet. It will create growth and make life more affordable all at the same time. We will continue to move forward with that plan.
In conclusion, I would say that every single member, all 338 in the House, ran on a commitment to price carbon in the last election. There were a couple of versions of it, but it was a unanimous position—
764 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:21:48 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:21:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what my colleague did not read from the government talking points is direct research that analyzes the impact of the clean fuel standard. This research by Professor Ross McKitrick found that the net international effect of this is likely to be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
I want to ask my hon. colleague, who appears to be just as oblivious as the government to the harsh realities facing so many Canadians, if it would be possible to at least delay the implementation of the second carbon tax by six months. This is not a political thing; it is the right thing to do for Canadians who are struggling.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:22:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy from my colleague down the way is pretty stunning. In the last election he added his name to a ballot, ran for our party and, like all members in this House, ran on a commitment to fight climate change. To now use affordability as a wedge in that fight that we must collectively take on is rather shameful.
Our government is continuing to work day in and day out to make life more affordable for Canadians. We continue to be very open to good ideas. However, I did not hear any good ideas in my colleague's speech tonight.
On Thursday, the fall economic statement will provide further details of our plan to continue building an economy that works for everyone. Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and indeed in Spadina—Fort York, can count on us to continue supporting them through this period of global, elevated inflation, while also continuing our mutual commitment to protect the environment.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:23:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be in Parliament tonight and to debate with my friend from Milton.
The member sometimes wonders where I am going with particular topics and I try to stay on topic to a certain extent. This one is a bit about health, and it is about what happened with PPE in the sense that when we got into COVID, there was a shortage. We had shipped PPE to other countries. We had destroyed our inventory and we tried to source PPE from China. That was problematic. Some of it that came was not of good quality and we could not use it. We had to pay a lot of money to get what we did get.
My point is this. We talk a lot about local supply chains. There are industries being developed in Canada where they are not using the plastic type that may have been seen in foreign ones. They are recycling material in Canada. They even have some carbon fibre in the material, so they are sequestering carbon fibre. We have innovative companies in Canada that are producing incredible materials that can be used in surgical suites in hospitals for surgical gowns and all the curtains. We have that innovation occurring here.
They are beginning to make some inroads into medical institutions to use it. It is washable. It is not thrown away in landfills like the one-use items that we import. This is the type of innovation that is going on in Canada with surgical gowns and surgical equipment.
My suggestion for the government is that it pursue these types of products in Canada that we have innovated and can use. For the next situation that Canada has, the government needs to stockpile them. They need to be using them in medical situations now. That is one suggestion that I have for my colleague.
I have another suggestion. In my particular riding, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank operates with some farmers in my area. These are people who donate land and donate the time to get the land ready for a crop. They seed it, irrigate it and they harvest it. I was at an event recently and learned that they have 100 bushels of red spring wheat, number one. That is the best quality wheat and a fantastic crop.
I spoke to these great farmers who are volunteers and want to feed the hungry people of the world. During COVID, this was a growing concern. We have these volunteers around the country and in my riding. There are a number of these operations in Canadian food banks. As I talked to them, they were very concerned about the cost they were paying in taxes on irrigation. This is a challenge for them because there is no way to recover that cost with the government programs, but it is a great program for feeding the hungry in the world, which became so evident during COVID.
495 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:27:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about our efforts to help Canadians live healthier lives.
Chronic diseases are critical issues for Canadians and for our health care system. That includes diet-related diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, and they are claiming the lives of more and more Canadians every day. These chronic diseases increase physical vulnerabilities and put Canadians more at risk.
As we have just seen these past two years during the COVID-19 pandemic, these diseases have far-reaching impacts on quality of life, not just for those Canadians living with these diseases but also their loved ones as well as health care systems.
At the outset of my friend's speech, he mentioned that he sometimes meanders a little bit like a sinusoidal river, like a creek I used to paddle down, and I tend to agree. However, it is kind of a serious thing, because adjournment debates, late shows, are meant to achieve something. They are meant to allow me, as a parliamentary secretary, to come here to talk about an important issue my friend and colleague raised in the House of Commons and felt was not adequately responded to.
I appreciate sometimes, in the haste of trying to find some notes or answer a question on the fly, my answers might not always be perfectly adequate. We do not get to practise all of the answers. People get to practise a question. If they know they are up in 14 minutes, they can go in front of the mirror and practise their question. Indeed, we often see members of the opposition practising their questions beforehand, and that is good. It adds to the level of debate.
What does not add to the level of the debate is the abuse of the late shows. The adjournment debates are meant to do one specific thing. It is meant to provide a bit more integrity to this whole parliamentary system. I feel, in this case and in previous cases, members are choosing to abuse the adjournment debate system.
I am happy to come to have a conversation about any subject. However, to use the late show, we need to first indicate there is a specific question we would like more information on. I have two jobs actually. I think about it a lot. The nature of my work is divided in two a little bit. I am a member of Parliament, and I represent my neighbours in Milton, Ontario, but I also represent the government. I am a parliamentary secretary for two ministers on subjects I care deeply about, which are health and sport. I think they are connected, and I was very grateful when the Prime Minister asked me to serve in this dual capacity.
In order to do a good job on the second part of my job, which is to represent the government, I cannot just come to the House and tell members about all of my great ideas, where I stand or what the great people of Milton want to hear. I also need to do my job as a parliamentary secretary and represent the views and the position of the government. However, I cannot do that if I am not given a bit of a heads-up on what the nature of the question will be.
The member for Bow River had indicated that he wanted to talk to me today about front-of-pack labelling for ground beef. In the previous session of the previous Parliament, our plan was to provide more information to consumers on the foods they consume when they have higher levels of fat, salt and sugar. It is a good plan. Some members raised important concerns around ground beef, how it is a single-ingredient food that does contain a bit more fat. Most of the fat gets cooked off when we prepare it. It was a good, valid concern, so we changed the way we package and label ground beef.
However, that has nothing to do with the question the member asked. He asked me about plastics and the pharmaceutical industry, or how we dealt with that—
702 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:31:21 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to confirm that the question that was meant to be answered more amply this evening was the one about packaging.
The hon. member for Bow River has the floor.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:31:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was my presumption, because we had this debate the last time about that specific question, that was the last question. In the House, we had that debate here for the late show the last time, and I remember discussing it with you afterward. If you are still on that question, I have moved on, so—
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member to speak through the Chair. Those conversations did not happen with me.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:32:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member and I discussed this particular question. I asked about front-of-label last time, so if he is still on that one, that is good for him, but I have moved on from that one.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:32:25 p.m.
- Watch
This was on the list for Adjournment Proceedings, so we are following that.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:32:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member for Bow River has moved on from the question of front-of-pack labelling for ground beef. It is not an issue anymore because we do not front-of-pack label ground beef. We resolved it in the previous session. The member has moved onto a new issue.
Generally, in order to qualify for an adjournment debate, the member needs to ask a question in the House of Commons and then indicate that the question was not adequately responded to. In this case, the member is abusing the system. I would ask folks on the Conservative side to be more respectful of the adjournment debates.
My time is for members and I am here to discuss these issues with them. However, I would ask them to provide me with the opportunity to do a bit of research on the issue at hand.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 6:33:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here today to talk about public health care. In this country, we are seeing public health care being undermined and falling apart in profound ways. I am seeing it fall apart in my riding in ways that I could never have imagined just a few years ago.
Before I talk about the specific issue, I want to take this opportunity to thank the health care workers, all the professionals, doctors, nurses and all the support staff around them who supported us through the pandemic.
We have heard all of the stats about having a high level of burnout. A lot of folks who were planning to work for many more years are retiring early because of the stress and because of those real concerns. I want to thank them and honour their work.
We also know that health care across Canada has reached a crisis point. For months in my riding, emergency rooms have been closing in Port Hardy, Port McNeill and Alert Bay.
For Canadians who do not know, Alert Bay is a ferry community on Malcolm Island. Receiving health care in its hospital is key because people cannot drive somewhere quickly. That is a major concern.
There have been multiple weeks of some of these hospitals being shut down and their emergency rooms being shut down all night long. I cannot imagine how terrifying it is for my constituents to know they do not have an emergency room around the corner if they desperately need it in the middle of the night.
In fact, in October, Port Hardy's emergency room was closed for 28 nights of the month. There were 28 nights with no emergency room facilities. The reason is a lack of staffing. There are not enough doctors, not enough nurses and not enough people to provide those essential services.
In this country, we are watching our national public health care system fall apart at the seams. I am here to plead for my constituents. I am coming before this place to ask the federal government to step up and start doing its part.
Whenever I think of universal public health care, I think of Tommy Douglas. He was voted the greatest Canadian because of his fundamental work in public health care and in making sure that was a reality in Canada.
We have heard the stories before the system was in place of people losing absolutely everything because they had to pay for health care to try to save the lives of loved ones. Tommy Douglas said, “I came to believe that health services ought not to have a price tag on them, and that people should be able to get whatever health services they required irrespective of their individual capacity to pay.”
We know that Canadians believe in public health care. We know that any form of privatization promises only a return to everyday Canadians who rely on their individual capacity to pay for health care. I hope the government is going to stand against that.
I am tired of hearing that this is a provincial or territorial responsibility. This is a joint responsibility, one where we are seeing very clearly the premiers of every province and territory stand up. They are doing a collective ad campaign calling on the federal government to step up and pay its part. That is tremendously important. How often do all premiers agree so specifically on something?
Rural and remote communities across the country have been left behind. The federal government needs to step up and make sure there is a meaningful strategy for health care for communities like mine. They are desperately waiting.
612 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
