Debates of Nov. 30th, 2021

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too worry about the pace of our infrastructure progressing in our country. We work very closely with the different levels of government, the provinces and municipalities, and often it gets caught up in some of the bureaucracies and red tape. It is something that concerns all of us. The commitment to great infrastructure investment is a solid one, a real one. We do want to move forward on these important infrastructure projects not only in B.C., but right across the country. The member is right that we have to do better in terms of getting shovels in the ground much faster.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Even though the throne speech was very short, there was still a small section on safety and a mention that the government would make the buyback program for assault-style assault weapons mandatory, which I welcome.

No pun intended, but the Liberal Party has switched targets. At first, it did not want to put that in the bill that it introduced in the last Parliament. However, there is another problem: the trafficking of firearms, in other words, handguns. There have been fatal shootings in Montreal.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of our proposal to create a joint task force to combat firearms trafficking at the border.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, gun violence impacts us all and there are a number of steps that we need to take in order to aggressively combat gun violence in our country. It is not just a ban on handguns, it is also ensuring that there are enough resources and attacking the root causes of gun violence in our society. It is also ensuring that our border officers have enough resources and technologies to be able to prevent guns from coming into our country. It is a whole number of steps that are going to be required in order for us to address gun violence and reduce it in our country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the importance of reconciliation and the need for action with regard to the TRC and the calls for justice by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, as per the constituents from her community. In the throne speech there was no mention of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, and no mention of the calls for justice by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. On top of that, there was no mention whatsoever of the urgent need for an urban, rural and northern “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing strategy.

What action will the member take to ensure that her government and the Prime Minister undertake what her constituents want her to do here, which is to take action on the TRC's recommendations, the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and to ensure there is a “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing strategy?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whether we mentioned it once or 10 times in the Speech from the Throne, I can assure the member, as well as everyone in the House, that implementing every single one of the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a top priority for our government, as well as implementing all of the calls for justice in the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. We have allocated a significant amount of money to make sure that those recommendations are implemented. It is something we are all seized with and we are determined to make great progress on in this Parliament.

Business of the House

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That a take-note debate on the softwood lumber dispute with the United States be held on Wednesday, December 1st, 2021, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

All members opposed to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Hearing none, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber to provide my reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I would like to start off by thanking the good people of Mississauga—Malton who elected me their representative. I would like to sincerely thank my constituents, my supporters and volunteers who worked from sunrise to sunset and beyond to have me elected. I would like to especially thank my family without whom I could not take this seat in the chamber today. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to recognize the good work of the member prior, the Hon. Navdeep Bains, and thank him for his years of service.

A faith in simple dreams, a quiet confidence, a profound optimism in better days to come, that we can work toward that better future without sacrificing our morals today, that is Canada.

If we step away from this hallowed chamber, walk the streets others will not visit, see the faces others will ignore and speak to the individuals often left out, we can learn what our country needs and how it can move forward.

If we listen, we will hear the voice of Abdul, who seeks only to bring honour to his house. He tells me that his father was persecuted for being a religious minority in their old country, that he escaped with his life to this beacon of hope we call home. Abdul’s father works on a factory line and after a long day’s work comes home, wanting to see hope and promise in his son’s eyes. His father only wishes to see his son get a good education and live a good life.

Abdul is a good son, is good mannered and all we can really ask for in a young man. It is with an apparent but heartbreaking shame that Abdul told me some of his darkest thoughts, as he pulled me aside on the campaign trail. He told me that he struggled with those thoughts for years, that no one knew this and that if he shared this burden with his family and word got out, he would bring dishonour to his father's name.

A silent mental health crisis exists among South Asian and ethnic communities. Mental health is deeply stigmatized in these communities. The children of immigrants face the challenges associated with straddling two different worlds. While trying to fit into a society that values individual expression, they navigate a culture at home where self-worth is determined by the validation of family and community. When seeking psychological services, they often are not understood and cultural nuances are ignored.

It gives me hope that our Prime Minister understands this looming crisis. This is the first Prime Minister in our country's history who has established the role of Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. We will establish a new federal transfer to provinces and territories, the Canada mental health transfer, to help jurisdictions expand the delivery of equitable, accessible and free mental health services. We will invest an initial $4.5 billion over five years for this initiative. This funding will mean more access to psychologists, therapists, social workers, counsellors and other community supports. It will mean better care for young people like Abdul so he can go on to achieve everything he hopes for himself.

If we listen, we will also hear the voice of Ghias, a recent immigrant to Canada. When I started on the campaign trail, a large part of me was worried immigrants would not connect with the plight of indigenous peoples, that they would be too focused on establishing their own lives here, buying a home, learning the language and securing themselves for future generations to come. When my family arrived in this country, that was certainly our focus. My father had left behind poverty and so much suffering. Would we be up to the task of taking on another burden? What could I expect from others when my family itself was having these questions?

Ghias told me that from where he came, his language and customs were suppressed by the majority, that he was punished for speaking a different dialect and that he could not dance their traditional dance nor dress in their traditional garb.

What Ghias said next was remarkable to me. Perhaps I had underestimated the immigrant spirit to take on more. Ghias told me that he sympathized with indigenous peoples and that he understood the pain. He told me that if he could enjoy the bounty this land had to offer, he was also willing to accept its darker history and work toward a better future.

In the Speech from the Throne our Governor General stated:

Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding.

As Canadians, we have a shared history and a common destiny. It does not matter if one came to Canada one month ago or one's ancestors came here a few hundred years ago, we must all carry the weight of this country's past. We should all desire to chart a path forward toward reconciliation, and we should make no mistake, because individuals like Ghias have a yearning to play a role in reconciliation and wish to walk the path toward reconciliation, to turn the country's guilt into action.

If we listen to Canadian voices, we will hear one more voice, the voice of Sukhraj. Sukhraj was born in Canada, but his parents were immigrants. They both work in a plastics factory and are nearing the age of retirement. After a life of hard work and renting, they want to buy a home they can grow old in, a home they can watch their grandkids grow up in. As is common in many extended South Asian families, Sukhraj wants to pool his savings with his parents to afford the home and live with them. The combined income of his parents and his savings is barely enough to afford a modest home in the suburbs of Toronto. Sukhraj tells me that as time goes on, his desperation increases, and he becomes willing to place offers far surpassing the list price of the home. Time after time, he is outbid. When he finally does manage to place an offer that lands him a house he comes to see me. Teary-eyed and barely able to get out the words, he asks me to come to a corner of the campaign office and cries on my shoulder.

The right to work toward a home is a right every Canadian should have. A place to call one's own should never be outside the reach of ordinary middle-class Canadians or those working hard to join the middle class. That is why this government has a plan around housing. Whether it is building more housing units per year, increasing housing or ending chronic homelessness, this government is committed to working for Canadians. Our plan is to ban foreign home ownership in our housing sector, to implement the proposed tax on non-residential, non-Canadian vacant homes, and to get together with our partners to ensure they can leverage our upcoming investments to build more housing supply as well as repair the existing stock. The housing accelerator fund will help municipalities build more and better, faster.

The government will also help families buy their first home sooner with a first-time homebuyer incentive, a rent-to-own program, and by reducing the closing costs for first-time homebuyers. These policies will help people like Sukhraj buy that first home, so that when they do it is a moment of happiness and not just a moment of relief.

The stories I have told, and the faces we have looked at, are not the stories of three individuals, but issues that affect all Canadians. Progress needs to be made. Progress must be made. In this chamber, we may disagree as to how to get there. As it has for more than 150 years, progress will come in bits and pieces, but if we put partisan rancour aside we can move forward.

This is Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is new, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I do not know if he heard my question to a previous Liberal member regarding the first-time homebuyer incentive.

The first-time homebuyer incentive was an election gimmick in 2019. The CMHC and the federal government said it would help 100,000 Canadians. The federal government's own numbers in February of 2021 show just over 9,000 people were helped. That is is 1.6% of the total number of homes that were sold and purchased by Canadians in 2020. Would he agree with me that this particular program, the first-time homebuyer incentive, is an election gimmick and a waste of time, that it has failed and that the federal government should move on this and adopt the Conservative housing proposals from this past federal election?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has a plan around housing. Whether it is building more housing per year, increasing the housing stock or ending chronic homelessness, this government is committed to working for Canadians.

The homebuyer incentive is not an election gimmick. We have a minister of housing who will work to make it happen. That is our commitment. Whether it is the homebuyer incentive, a rent-to-own program or reducing the costs for first-time homebuyers, we will help new homebuyers buy that first home.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to hear him talk about workers, and more specifically about the fate of those who have lost their jobs.

I had an interview request this morning in my riding. There are EI applications sitting on desks at the department and not being processed. These applicants are calling members of Parliament to try to get some follow-up, because they have been without a source of income for months. They tell us that when the officials answer them, they ask them if they have done everything possible to find a job. It is quite alarming to see this kind of thing.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with what his government's officials are saying.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of the pandemic, this government has been focused on supporting Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is why we created the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy benefit and the Canada emergency rent subsidy, which have helped so many in my riding of Mississauga—Malton. These benefits have helped many small businesses keep their doors open and helped the hard-working residents of Mississauga—Malton put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and pay for necessities. Our government was there for Canadians at the start of the pandemic and will continue to support Canadians as long as it takes as we recover.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member. Tillicum Lelum Aboriginal Friendship Centre in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith has been providing essential services to urban indigenous people for over 50 years. Since COVID, the Tillicum Lelum staff have seen a shift in the supports required to meet the needs of community members. Their youth safe house, for example, has seen increased numbers and an increased complexity of needs, and for the young moms program, numbers have been increasing. Day after day, Tillicum Lelum staff are seeing low-income families who need and deserve affordable, safe and accessible housing.

Could the member clarify to the constituents of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, including those accessing vital services from Tillicum Lelum, when the government will do what is needed to ensure everyone has a place to call home?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing is a priority for this government. That is why we are introducing a rent-to-own program and have the first-time home buyer incentive. In fact, we will ban foreign home ownership for years to come so that homes can be more affordable for Canadians. The right to a home for Canadians is a right that everyone should enjoy, and it is something we should work toward. We will ensure that it happens.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell that the member for Mississauga—Malton and I will work well together, given his approach to his constituents in reflecting their visions. Could he comment on the vision of mental health that was mentioned in the throne speech, the importance of mental health to his constituents and our focus on that area?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, mental health is very important, especially in ethnic communities, which seem to suffer more during crises like the pandemic because there is no targeted support for them. This is a conversation I have had with friends, and it is unfortunately a very sad conversation. I am very thankful that the Prime Minister has appointed a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, and I look forward to working with the minister to better serve the constituents of Mississauga—Malton.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Repentigny.

If I had a title for my speech, it would be “autopsy of a failure”. Before we talk about the throne speech, let us go back in time, to last spring. I would remind my colleagues that we were in a pandemic last spring. There was only one MP on the other side. I say this often, because I cannot believe it. There was just the member for Kingston and the Islands. All the other Liberal Party members were in their basements or some such place. They were afraid of the pandemic. They were shaking under their desks. Once in a while, the Prime Minister would come and visit. I remember that we would give a start of surprise when we saw him coming. We were shocked to see that there were other Liberals in that party. He would arrive from time to time and answer questions.

Then, things improved. Quebec began opening up. We thought the Liberals would eventually see common sense. We talked about it with their leader and their whip. They said that they could not come to the House, that the situation was still terrible and that there was still a pandemic. They continued to hide under their desks in the basement. They said that they could not do it, that they could not handle the light of day and that they needed to adapt.

It made no sense. That was the Liberal approach. They were afraid of the pandemic.

People say a lot of things, but the Prime Minister can be very persuasive. He convinced those folks over there that it was time to call an election. Even though we were in a fourth wave of the pandemic, he convinced them that the time was right. Even though it was only two years after the previous election, it was the right time to meet the public. An election had to be called, the situation was critical, there was an emergency on the home front.

At the end of the day, one by one, Liberal Party members took the bait. They thought they were going to walk around, meet with people and shake their hands. Soon they were making human pyramids. They were happy; they were finally out.

They told people that they were calling an election and that everybody would have to line up to vote. We were in the fourth wave of the pandemic, but no big deal. They said they could not make Parliament work because of their minority situation, that it was not going well and that the opposition was behaving outrageously. They all said that.

I have been the House leader of the Bloc Québécois since 2019, and I remember that everything was going well. The opposition was making its contribution. There were discussions happening, and that was great. Bills were being improved because we were all working together. I would say that the main problem during that time was more the Liberal government's lack of organization in developing its parliamentary strategy and legislative agenda than the opposition from the opposition parties.

There were bills on the table, and the work was getting done. Bill C‑10 got all the way to the Senate. In Quebec, we had been waiting for years for the web giants to contribute to the culture sector. The bill died in the Senate because of the election. Bill C‑216 was meant to ensure that supply management would be protected in future trade agreements. It was on track. Everything was going well. Bill C‑6 on conversion therapy was almost wrapped up. The Liberals are coming back to that now with another bill.

The bill that made pensioners first in line to get paid when a company goes bankrupt was also coming along nicely. The one that made sure that someone with a serious illness was entitled to 50 weeks of EI benefits was moving forward. That is something to be expected, it makes sense, but they decided to throw it all away and call an election, because time was of the essence.

The Prime Minister looked people straight in the eye and told them that it was urgent, that the government needed their opinion because otherwise horrible things lay ahead. The public voted, and almost all members are back, except for a few changes.

The public said to stop fooling around, stop with the elections and get back to work. They said to get back to work because we are in a pandemic. That is what the public said. The public told the government to get its act together and return to Parliament.

Now the Liberals are returning to Parliament. They wanted a majority government, but that turned out to be a flop. Now they are saying that we need to take the bull by the horns, that it is extremely important, that it is urgent.

We sat around for two months. We waited for Parliament to be recalled for two months. Our clothes were out of style by the time we came back here.

They came back, claiming that the throne speech would be as amazing as a kangaroo on a trampoline and that we would have to wait and see. People were saying that the speech would be amazing, that it would be the highlight of the decade.

When we heard the speech, however, there was nothing there. The government should be ashamed of having given birth to a mouse. It is not even a mouse; it is a flea and you would need a microscope just to see what is there. No matter how many times you read it, there is nothing there.

In the end, we did find one thing. We learned that the government does not like its jurisdictions and prefers to interfere in provincial ones. The government asked itself how it could interfere in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. Someone a little smarter said that the provinces and Quebec would be stunned if the government were to interfere in health care.

The government talks about health but fails to mention that provincial health care systems are underfunded because the federal government has been starving them for more than 20 years. The federal government is saying that it is going to stop giving the provinces the money they deserve and is going starve them little by little. At some point, however, all hell is going to break loose. That is when the federal government will step in and say that the provinces do not know how to manage health care and that there are all kinds of problems in the sector.

However, the federal government has been starving the provinces' and Quebec's health care systems for 20 years. It is quite simple. The government must be told to increase payments as it should be doing and to increase transfers to 35% of the cost of health care for everyone in Canada and Quebec. Everyone agrees on this amount except for the federal government, which does not understand. The federal government is telling itself that it will say that the provinces are not doing a good job, so that it can go ahead and interfere in their jurisdictions.

The federal government is steadfast, and it does not like its jurisdictions. The rail crisis fell under federal jurisdiction, but it let the provinces deal with it. It says it will let the City of Montreal and Quebec deal with the firearms issue. When an issue falls under its jurisdiction, it does not want to deal with it, but it will meddle in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. If the Prime Minister wanted to run a provincial government, all he had to do was stand for election in British Columbia. However, he is the Prime Minister of Canada.

The federal government thought it came up with a good idea by announcing that it needs a minister responsible for mental health, an area that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. However, the federal government said that it would be all right and that it would be fun. It went ahead with it.

This morning, despite being comfortably seated, I fell right off my chair when the leader of the official opposition said a minister responsible for mental health was a good idea. The Conservatives have been saying for years that they do not want to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Then, this morning, the leader of the official opposition said he was disappointed and ready to fight. The thing is, one cannot respect the provinces' jurisdiction by leaving them alone and support the idea of a minister responsible for mental health at the same time. That does not work, but that is what the Conservatives did, and they thought it was pretty great. Then they said it was because the government was no good. I think the root of the problem is not that the government is not good; it is that it did not do its basic job.

Quebeckers send half their taxes to Ottawa because they want to be taken care of during a pandemic that makes the problem even worse. What Quebec and Quebeckers want is to see the money they send to Ottawa flowing back to where it is needed: health care. The federal government does not have the authority to handle health care. It has never done so. It has never paid a doctor or a nurse, and it has almost never run a hospital, so it must send that money to the people with expertise in this area: my government, the Government of Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants.

We are also thinking about seniors, who suffered in isolation, who were the most affected by the pandemic in terms of health, who are on a fixed income and who are now being financially strangled by inflation. The only thing the federal government did was divide them into two classes. It said that it would help seniors 75 and up, but seniors 65 to 75 would have to wait.

In the House, three ministers said that if seniors 65 to 75 did not have the means to live comfortably, they would have to go back to work. Seriously? The federal Liberal government wants to send people 65 to 75 back to work? This government is already worn out only two months in. Good thing it spent two months resting, or it would be dead.

With a throne speech like that, I think the opposition will have its work cut out for it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that often that I see somebody with such great passion speak in the House as this member just did, so I applaud him for that. I definitely think that he shows his passion for various issues.

I do have a concern over something he said towards the beginning of his speech. The member talked about how the House was working so well together. He talked specifically about conversion therapy and how it had been passed. The member was in the House, and he saw the games that Conservative members were playing just to delay.

In the 11th hour, just before we were about to recess, the Conservatives finally said, “Okay, we will let this bill pass.” Then it went to the Senate, and the leader of the Conservatives in the Senate started tactics to try to delay the bill. This happened with a number of pieces of legislation, not just on conversion therapy.

Could the member explain to me how he feels the House was working so well together, when in reality we were seeing roadblock after roadblock from the Conservatives?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can look at all the bills and go over their history. I have no problem with that.

We could talk about Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. The Conservative Party blocked that bill, as my colleague said. The Bloc Québécois, meanwhile, decided to support the bill and move it forward.

No, the Conservatives' approach to Bill C-6 was not exemplary. However, an election should not be called simply because one or two bills get stuck, when many bills are going through without a hitch. I know; I was there.

Yes, the Conservatives could take a good hard look at themselves when it comes to this bill. They have not been effective, one could say, but the fact remains that this is a democracy. The Conservatives were against the bill and they showed it.

What I am trying to say is that when there is a strong, robust, intelligent and effective legislative agenda, things go well. That was the problem in the last Parliament. The government did not get the job done.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very enjoyable. One of the things he mentioned was inflation and the cost of living. That is a very important issue in northern Ontario and across the country.

Does the member agree that it is time for the government to stop printing money, get spending under control and ensure it is doing what it can to address inflation?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has had just one inflation target since 1991.

It is the second bank in the history of the world, after New Zealand, to have such a specific target. In 1991, the Bank of Canada wrote that its only monetary policy goal was to maintain inflation between 1% and 3%, ideally aiming for 2%.

That is the only goal of the Bank of Canada. I hope that the bank will continue the good work it has been doing since 1991. I also hope that the government will respect the fact that the Bank of Canada is responsible for combatting inflation.

This obviously does not mean that the government should spend as it pleases. This means that the government must keep close tabs on its spending.

The Bank of Canada has a role to play, and I hope that it will do so.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw a parallel between the management of Canada and the management of the Montreal Canadiens.

The summer is normally a time to rest, but they both chose to play the game, and they both ultimately got very close to their goal but never reached it.

Yesterday, the Montreal Canadiens management decided to do something and finally clean house.

Is there still a parallel to be made between the two? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite the question. I must thank my colleague, who is putting me on the spot.

Clearly, the Montreal Canadien players do not skate as well as the Liberals. That is a fact. However, we hope that the Prime Minister will do a somewhat better job as general manager than Marc Bergevin.

Aside from that, Canada and Quebec decided that we would have a minority Parliament. The role that the opposition must play and that the Bloc Québécois will play is to monitor the government, be a constructive opposition, provide advice and act to ensure that this government has policies that will truly serve Quebeckers and Canadians. We have a lot of work to do in that regard.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the voters of Repentigny who have put their trust in me for a third time. I would also like to thank all of the volunteers who supported me and helped me achieve victory, which can never be taken for granted. I am thinking in particular of Christiane and Assia. I do not have enough time today to thank everyone by name.

Representing and defending the interests of my riding, Repentigny, is very important. It is just as important to be a voice in the House for all of Quebec when it comes to the environment, and more specifically to what the Government of Canada is not doing but has an obligation to do in order to ensure a future for my nation, for my people, of every generation.

Let us turn to the throne speech. After an election that nobody wanted, were we entitled to expect a content-rich throne speech, a speech that had substance and that provided clarity about the government's agenda? I think so.

I am not the only one who noticed that Governor General Simon's first throne speech unfortunately did not live up to any expectations. We heard a few statements such as: “The Government is taking real action to fight climate change.” Really. “Now, we must go further, faster.” All right. “This is the moment for bolder climate action.” We shall see.

The campaign promise to cap oil and gas sector emissions sounded really promising, but here is the problem: the government's behaviour on past commitments and the lack of transparency raised by Commissioner DeMarco suggest that there is something fishy going on. What is needed is a cap on oil and gas production and a phase-out plan if there is to be any hope of getting real results. Again, there is no such thing as clean, ethical oil and coal.

The throne speech contained only three lines on the electrification of transportation. It was the Bloc Québécois that proposed net-zero legislation to force auto manufacturers to make a varied fleet of electric vehicles available to Quebeckers and Canadians within a reasonable time frame.

Although the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development was unanimous in recommending the adoption of such a policy, the government dragged its feet before responding and eventually called an election.

What about the total lack of any reference to the banking and financial sector's responsibility for the climate crisis? My colleague from Mirabel spoke about this at length last week.

We are still waiting for the mandate letters to be sent to the various ministers, particularly the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. My colleagues and I are anxious so see that letter. Citizens and organizations continue to be concerned about the federal government's inaction on climate change. With a throne speech so lacking in content, that mandate letter would at least give us a true indication of the government's intentions on this issue, which, we must agree, is urgent.

The new cabinet was sworn in on October 26. Five weeks have passed, and the Prime Minister is still keeping us waiting. For a government that kept saying how much it wanted to get to work, I have my doubts about how hard it has been working so far.

What we are seeing right now in British Columbia and the Maritimes also happened in Quebec in 2018. Whether it be flooding, heat waves, forest fires or droughts, natural disasters are everywhere, and no region will be spared. Anyone who has doubts about the effects of the climate crisis should go and talk to the communities that are on high alert right now.

The combined impact of climate change and the pandemic is serious. The global health of populations is being affected. New pathologies are emerging. Some are worsening and others are taking on an unprecedented scale.

In November, researchers at the Université de Sherbrooke's faculty of medicine published the results of a study involving 10,000 people that was carried out over the past two years during the pandemic. I will provide a summary and I invite my colleagues to read the results in their entirety. The study shows that “the longer it takes governments to act on climate change, the greater the psychosocial impacts.”

I also invite the government to read one of its own publications from the Public Health Agency of Canada, a special issue devoted entirely to climate change and health. In the first few pages we read the following:

While the health sector is already grappling with climate change impacts on public health and healthcare needs, priorities, use, provision, and costs, health adaptation is generally under-represented in policies, planning, and programming.

It is important to mention that the impact that the climate crisis is having on the health of vulnerable populations—in particular seniors, people living in rural areas, farmers and indigenous peoples—as evidenced by infectious diseases, food security, water, morbidity, mortality and the entire spectrum of mental health, is now a threat to everyone.