So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mar/24/22 11:34:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks French very well and his question is fundamental. We are in a pandemic. By definition, a pandemic is global. This is not an epidemic; it is a pandemic. I invited members of Amnesty International to appear before a parliamentary committee. They came to speak to us about this waiver, which Canada should support. It is absolutely clear. Canada has good intentions, but it does not seem to be following through. It must be much more proactive and help get patents waived since that would democratize access to vaccines and anti-virals. We must also provide more support for the supply and deployment chain in developing countries. It is not good enough to send vaccines that sometimes expire two weeks later. We must provide the logistical support needed so that the vaccines can be administered. Having vaccines produced on site would prevent a lot logistical problems in many cases. It would make it possible for people to be much more autonomous in terms of vaccination and enable them to provide the drugs needed to fight the pandemic.

181 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mar/24/22 11:32:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we could, in fact, be on the verge of a resurgence of infections. Quebec is preparing for a sixth wave. We have not yet reached what is referred to as the endemic phase, where the rate of infection levels off and, with the appropriate measures and predictability, we are able to control the vectors and therefore the health care networks. We are a long way from that. Just look at what is happening in other countries. This is going to affect us too or is starting to affect us. I am talking about the resurgence that happened in Denmark and is currently happening in Europe. We have to continue to be careful. The precautionary principle must be applied. We owe it to the most vulnerable.

127 words

Context: House Hansard - 44 - Mar/23/22

Mar/24/22 11:21:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Since the start of this pandemic, I have often asked myself the following question: What should I do? It is the pre-eminent ethical and political question. In this debate, we must consider the ethical principle of responsibility. That is the approach taken by the Bloc Québécois from the outset of the pandemic. Since the first wave, we have been making decisions by trying to predict the positive and negative impacts they would have on the future. We did not make decisions based on what had happened or what would happen. We owe it to the most vulnerable to do what is ethically responsible. I will try not to make this a partisan debate. Obviously, everyone is fed up with the pandemic and tired of restrictions. When making public health policy, we must avoid making decisions based on whims or on which way the wind is blowing. As representatives of the people, we must avoid being opportunistic and partisan. Above all, we must make informed decisions that are based not on individual interests or how we feel that day, but on the common good and everyone's best interest. The position that the Bloc Québécois is taking today is guided by these ethical considerations. It might be easier if we were in an endemic situation. Has the pandemic reached its endemic threshold? Some people think that, once we reach this threshold, we will be able to lift all of the health measures and act as if the pandemic and the virus no longer exist. In the five waves that have hit us, what infuriates me is to see how some people and some members of the House have unfortunately appropriated the opinions of experts and scientists. We have embraced a new religion, scientism. Scientists, however are unpretentious people. Usually, they are certain only about their uncertainty. Science is merely the calculation of uncertainties. The difference between science and religion is that science can be falsified. That being said, it is really tiresome to hear so many people say that we need to base our decisions on science. I do not have a problem with that, but scientists themselves cannot agree on many issues. Beyond the scientific facts, we need to apply the ethics of responsibility for the common good. That is the point to our discussion today. Will immediately lifting all the health measures as proposed in today’s motion help or hurt the situation? That is the question. I would like to talk about the endemic phase, because no one has brought it up during this debate. Some experts, if I may use the term, say that those who believe that the word “endemic” means living with the virus and lifting all health restrictions are wrong. It can even be dangerous to believe that, because it can lead to an excess of optimism and, by extension, unexpected waves of outbreaks. In the endemic phase, we still need to control the disease. We need to limit the spread of the virus by providing better ventilation, controlling the spread and increasing hospital capacity, since some people will end up in hospital. Point (a) of today’s motion says that we need to protect jobs. I looked at the employment rate recently. In February 2020, it was 5.7%. Two years later, in February 2022, after two years of pandemic, it was 5.5%. Point (b) mentions enabling Canadians to travel unimpeded. As of this morning, according to the United States embassy and consulate, if I want to cross the border, I must show a passport, proof of vaccination or a negative test result. If I want to go to Europe, the same rules apply. Just recently, WHO spoke out strongly against the lifting of measures in Europe. Were measures lifted too soon? Earlier, I was listening to the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who talked about a plan throughout his speech. We agree that a plan is needed. The federal government should have tabled a plan like the provinces and Quebec did. A plan would enable us to plan and to adapt to the situation. There are some constants in this pandemic. Quebec's plan includes lifting the mask mandate in some public places as of mid-April, but just having a plan gives Quebec the time to react if the number of cases grows, as is currently happening in Europe. It is therefore quite possible that the Quebec government will tell us that the lifting of the mask mandate is postponed for two weeks. However, the federal government did not table a plan, and that is shameful. It would be good if the government would think about that and if today's debate would inspire the government to table a plan. Point (c) of today's motion says that we need to ensure the recovery of Canada's tourism industry. However, the day we lift all restrictions and face a resurgence in the number of infections, the tourism industry will be the first one affected. One of the constants of this pandemic is that we have always had a month to see things coming. What happens in Europe happens here a month later. We thought we would be spared during the first and second waves, but that has never been the case, and we might be on the verge of a sixth wave. Another constant that everyone has experienced is that infections surge every time restrictions are lifted. The restrictions were lifted for legitimate reasons, such as ensuring that people would keep complying with public health measures and messages, to protect mental health, or to give people a break over the Christmas holidays or March break, for example. Implementing public health measures is akin to practising medicine on a large scale. If patients stop complying, there is nothing else that can be done. I believe that we are on the verge of a new wave, at least in Quebec. The people who are saying that it is not so bad because omicron is milder should try saying that to patients with terminal cancer who do not have COVID‑19 and who feel abandoned. The pandemic is affecting our health care networks, which were already weakened. Our quality of life has been restricted because these networks have not been able to provide care to patients dealing with anything other than COVID‑19. The federal government needs to increase health transfers immediately. It is inconceivable to think that the government would not provide more funding to strengthen our networks so that we can get through the sixth, seventh and eighth waves without having our lives disrupted like they were during the first five waves.

1158 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mar/23/22 2:44:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is unanimous. Everyone is asking for increased health transfers with no strings attached. Quebec and the provinces, whether Liberal, NDP or Conservative, are all in favour of increased health transfers. That is called a consensus. I am sorry to be the one to say it, but when the government goes up against consensus and unanimity, it is the one picking a fight. My question for the government and its orange farm team is this: Why pick a fight instead of joining the consensus and increasing health transfers with no strings attached?

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 40 - Mar/3/22

Mar/22/22 2:44:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, without a sound argument, it just sounds like bickering. Pharmacare, home care, long-term care, hiring doctors and nurses—none of this is a federal responsibility. Obviously, the NDP-Liberal deal is about more than just strengthening the minority government. More than that, it aims to weaken the powers and choices of Quebec and the provinces, unless there is an opt-out. In everything announced today, are the government and its buddies committed to giving Quebec and the provinces the right to opt out with full compensation, with no strings attached?

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 40 - Mar/3/22

Mar/3/22 1:29:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since the start of the conflict, the Conservatives have been calling on the government to impose strong sanctions. In this morning's edition of La Presse, we learned from a respected journalist that Roman Abramovitch controls 28% of Evraz, which is supplying most of the steel to build the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the Coastal GasLink pipeline. We also learned that another Russian oligarch, Igor Makarov, is the main shareholder in Alberta gas company Spartan Delta. These two individuals are on the United States' list of Vladimir Putin's allies. Canada is not ruling out confiscating their assets, at this time. Does my colleague agree with the Liberals? Should we continue to apply a double standard for these individuals or should we immediately impose sanctions on them?

133 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 40 - Mar/3/22

Mar/3/22 12:08:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, history has shown us many times how destructive war can be. A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report shows how destructive the climate crisis can be. The Conservatives are claiming that theirs is an ethical solution. However, replacing one bad thing with another bad thing is not an ethical solution. What does my colleague think of the Conservatives' claim that this is an ethical solution?

69 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 39 - Mar/2/22

Mar/3/22 10:29:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, La Presse newspaper published an excellent article by Paul Journet this morning about the Conservatives' obsession with building pipelines and exporting fossil fuels. He wrote that there are two obstacles standing in Canada's way. First, competing countries are already lined up to supply Germany. He mentioned Norway in particular and wrote that time is not on Canada's side. It would take a few years to get a liquefaction plant up and running, but the war has prompted the German chancellor to speed up his energy transition. Paul Journet quoted the German chancellor as saying, “the faster we make progress with the development of renewable energies, the better”. The chancellor then added that his finance minister calls renewable energy “freedom energy”. Does my colleague not believe that, rather than using—

138 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mar/2/22 6:20:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-216

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑216 from the member for Courtenay—Alberni, whom I like very much and have known since 2015. He is a noble-hearted man. I am confident that he brings his bill to us today, at the passage-in-principle stage, because he hopes to address this acutely alarming issue. I will read out the summary because the bill has three parts. I would have thought the government would want to put these eggs in its Bill C‑5 basket, but apparently not. I am just thinking out loud, but the fact remains that the Bloc Québécois falls somewhere in between. I will explain its position. First, this enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal a provision that makes it an offence to possess certain substances. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts. Second, it enacts the Expungement of Certain Drug-related Convictions Act. We debated this and talked about how someone who gets stopped for simple possession is in trouble not only on human level, because they have substance abuse issues, but also because they are left with a criminal record and all the associated stigma. The third part is important in my opinion. Substance use is a complex problem and phenomenon, and a national strategy on substance use is important, but what I find most intriguing is that the bill requires the Minister of Health to develop a national strategy to address the harm caused by problematic substance use. The thing is, in the bill itself, it says this whole strategy, including the decriminalization of simple possession, will be implemented the year after the act comes into force. For now, I need to think about this because it raises some issues. I am going to do something I have never done in the House. Medical assistance in dying is another difficult issue, but I have never shared a personal experience. I want people to understand that things have evolved. There is a thing called sociology of law. We have come a long way, and it is great to hear all members of the House because nowadays, in 2022, we no longer see problems associated with drug use as a crime issue; we see them as a public health issue, a socioeconomic issue and, sometimes, a mental health issue. I had the privilege of having an experience in my life that made me grow. It was in 1998, 24 years ago. After that, I could never again look at a homeless person with multiple addictions in the same way when I saw them on the street. Why? I had some communications students come to me and ask me for some ethical guidance. They told me about a place called Chez ma cousine Evelyn, which served as a kind of buffer zone. Speaking of diversion, there was a pilot project at the time. In order to get a bed, a place, a room in that house—and there were not many beds—you had to be homeless, an addict, and HIV positive. You had to have all three of those problems. We set out looking for people like that downtown, and we identified a huge number of young people under 35 who met those criteria. Unfortunately, there were no resources. We approached these people and got them to speak with us. They could be anyone, including me or anyone here, a grandson, my daughter or a neighbour's daughter. These people had a life story that had nothing to do with their current state. Some were remarkable. I remember one person who had studied at Oxford. We would have coffee very early in the morning and she would teach me about philosophy, even though she was at the point where she did not care about anything other than her substance use. These people were well known to the local police and therefore could go to sleep at Chez ma cousine Évelyne, consume substances there and be supervised by workers who helped manage their consumption. What is interesting, they told us, is that the first few times they injected, they would hide in the bedroom to do it, even though they were allowed do it there without any problem. If the police saw them on the street late at night, needing a ride, the police would bring them back to Chez ma cousine Évelyne. To make a long story short, we worked with them for three months and only then, and not before, were we able to turn on the cameras. When they talked to us, it was as though the cameras were not there. We learned a lot during that time. Chez ma cousine Évelyne was able to take them in when they had hit rock bottom, felt defeated and had a millstone around their necks. Some people believe that all it takes is resolve and keeping one's head above water, but these people kept going under right away. Seeing this reality was quite the experience for me. When these people hit bottom, there is no one there for them. They themselves acknowledge that they have alienated everyone. In some cases, we were able to ensure that the individual could die at Chez ma cousine Évelyne surrounded by family members, with whom they had managed to reconnect. Those were intensely human moments. Because of this experience, I am saying yes to decriminalization. However, we need a way to achieve that. A very interesting report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction points out that legislative intervention, meaning decriminalization, is ultimately only one of the pillars of a comprehensive approach, which takes time and effort to implement. Portugal, for example, scaled up prevention, treatment and harm reduction services two years prior to decriminalization. Implementation of a pan-Canadian strategy should therefore precede decriminalization to ensure that the federal government or other levels of government do not shirk their responsibility by arguing that those people are no longer in the legal system. That is the main problem we see in this bill. It is also the reason we would like to improve it. We will reflect on this.

1046 words

All Topics

Mar/1/22 2:02:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Sylvain Racine and his immense contribution to the development of community television in Les Moulins. Sylvain has not only been a community television professional, but also a stalwart supporter. He started in 1983 as a volunteer and saw TVRM through its experimental stage, when staff were creating content with whatever they had on hand. He enjoyed the experience so much that he worked his way up to general manager in 1997 and stayed there until quite recently, in addition to serving on the board of directors of the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec. Sylvain shaped TVRM in his own image, making it dynamic, supportive, unifying and solidly anchored in the community. In addition to giving many young journalists a chance to pursue their passion, he helped TVRM grow, strengthen its foundations, and become a key player in our civic democracy, a role I hope it will continue to fulfill for a long time to come. Happy retirement, Sylvain.

178 words

Feb/21/22 6:45:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the parliamentary secretary to adopt a tone and attitude similar to that of his colleague from Louis-Hébert, because, in both form and substance as well as in tone, other than creating a distraction, he has not contributed all that much to the debate. One thing is clear, for instance. We know that there is at least one member on the Liberal side of the House who agrees with us that the proclaimed orders do not meet the requirements or tests needed to invoke the Emergencies Act. The member for Louis-Hébert has just told us that, if he were to vote his conscience, he would vote against this motion. He has courage. However, he says that he has a moral contract with his party, that this moral contract prevents him from defeating his party, and that he will therefore vote in favour of the motion if it is a confidence vote. Does the parliamentary secretary have the courage to tell us whether it is a confidence vote or not?

179 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 5:21:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that passing the Emergencies Act in its 1988 version is not abusive because it is guided by the consideration and review of the legislators we are. However, by making this a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister is perverting the free and informed review that we should be conducting as legislators. Worse yet, he is hiding his real intentions from his members. Does my colleague not find once again that the Prime Minister is demonstrating a shocking lack of leadership?

86 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 5:06:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem here. All day, it has been said that it would be preferable if members voted their conscience. The member for Louis-Hébert just told us the orders do not respect the invocation criteria for the act. That is what he just told us. If it were not a confidence motion, he would vote against it, but he does not know whether it is a confidence vote or not. What does the member think of this situation where the Prime Minister has not even been clear with his members and does not have the courage to tell them whether, yes or no, this is a confidence vote?

115 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 4:21:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act is the ultimate action a government can take. By making this evening's vote a confidence vote, is the Prime Minister not injecting partisanship into a vote that should reflect the conscience of each member of the House?

43 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 3:21:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said that he wanted to restore the rule of law. However, following the rule of law involves meeting the criteria required to invoke the Emergencies Act. The government failed to do that, but it still talking about restoring the rule of law. Does my Conservative colleague not think that the government is basically just living by the old adage of “do as I say, not as I do”?

80 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 12:00:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, not only do the orders not meet the criteria set out in section 3 of the Emergencies Act, but, to hear the arguments from our Liberal colleagues, we really get the impression that they are turning the ultimate tool at the government's disposal into a public interest law. Does my colleague not find that this trivializes the act?

61 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 11:01:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the police did a remarkable job this weekend. However, even though the chief of the Ottawa Police Service found the Emergencies Act helpful, I think the police operation could have gone ahead even if the Emergencies Act had not been invoked, simply by using the laws that were already in place. In that regard, it is possible that people are losing confidence in their democratic institutions. However, it is important that whatever happens in the streets can be discussed in this parliamentary forum. If we do not live up to the highest standards of democracy, these debates will end up taking place in the streets.

109 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 10:59:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously, my colleague understood the questions I asked earlier. I think that our colleagues opposite should indeed be able to vote freely, without any party lines, on an issue as important as this one. Invoking the Emergencies Act is the ultimate act that the executive branch can take, and it should therefore respect our legislative authority.

58 words

All Topics