Debates of Jan. 31st, 2024

Pandemic Day Act

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, The Assistant Deputy Speaker]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the motion be carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. Everyone has heard about it. In simple language, the bill states that throughout Canada, each and every year, March 11 would be known as “pandemic observance day”.

There are about three reasons to do this. The first is to remember that, to date, 57,000 people in Canada have actually died from COVID-19, to remember and honour those people, and to also remember that 57,000 is more than all the Canadians who died in the Second World War. This is a huge number of people who died from a pandemic. We also need to remember their suffering and try to find how we can support all the people who are the family members and other bereaved people from throughout this crisis.

The second part of what we need to do is continue recovering from COVID-19. I use the word “continue” because since the so-called pandemic was lifted, 7,000 more Canadians have died. Up to today, that is the number. Therefore, we know that COVID has not disappeared; COVID actually continues to be a variant. It continues to adapt and change, as we know all viruses have a tendency to do. Each time, we do not know what the variant will be.

The important thing for us to do is remember that we are continuing to recover and that we must continue, therefore, to apply solid and strong public health commitments to what we do. In other words, we must continue to recognize that while this virus continues, we must wear masks when we are in an unventilated place, continue to wash our hands and continue to do all of the things we did during the pandemic, because we do not want to have the pandemic recur in large numbers.

We need to therefore remember the day and learn of the evolution of the pandemic. We have tests and vaccines. Get the tests, vaccines and booster shots. People must make sure they are protected. They do not want to be counted and increase the number from 57,000 to 58,000. Please reflect on that and remember that viruses are totally unpredictable.

We have independent, trusted science that we must remember, think about and follow, and we must make sure that Canadians are informed. If we are not worried and we think we are invulnerable, will never get COVID and can walk around ignoring it, we must remember that we have a duty to the people around us who could get sick and who could in fact be impacted by it. Let us not forget that this is a duty to others as well in a pandemic.

With respect to recovering from COVID, we must also remember that COVID-19 was a pandemic, the first true pandemic we have had since the influenza after the war. Therefore, what we need to remember about this is that there will no longer be epidemics; we are going to have pandemics. Because of globalization, people who have never travelled before are travelling all around the world and bringing back viruses, diseases and illnesses. We are talking about people from every corner of the globe. The transmission of any illness or disease is quicker and easier in this world of globalization. We need to remember this if a pandemic begins and we feel we have not taken steps to prevent it from happening. Many countries had six times the number of deaths that Canada had because they did not have the resources. Many countries suffered a great deal. Is that what we want for other countries in the world? This duty of care is ours to remember.

Our third duty is to be prepared for any other pandemic, be prepared for the recurrence of COVID-19, make sure we learn something from the COVID-19 pandemic and apply what we learned. Let us not repeat it. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Let us not have a repetition of another COVID-19 in this country or anywhere.

We remember the people who lived in homes and institutions, the elderly people who died who did not have to and who died alone because they did not have family with them to look after them because of the isolation that was needed.

I am asking members to remember, for those reasons; to learn our lessons; to look at how we apply those lessons to preventing future pandemics; and to make sure we always mark this day.

This is a Senate bill. It was brought in by a senator who was previously a family physician, Dr. Mégie. As a physician, like I am, she understood the need to apply science to things like pandemics. Science is clear and evidence-based. Science will learn from the things we made mistakes on and from the things we learned how to do to deal with future occurrences. Let us be mindful of science. Let us not apply ideology to pandemics. Viruses do not particularly care whether one lives in Ontario or in Newfoundland. COVID-19 did not did not care; it did not understand or respect provincial boundaries. Let us remember that when we talk about how we deal with scientific evidence in order to protect ourselves and others.

Again, as parliamentarians, our own duty is to remember to be aware of science and our duty of care to all the people we represent in the House, all of Canada. We have a duty to care for them in the same way we care for them when they do not have good drinking water or when they are suffering from poverty and say that food prices are too high. Those are the ways we care. Let us continue to care.

When I hear of people who continue to debunk science and say that it is nonsense and that politicians make decisions, I say that politicians should make informed decisions based on good knowledge and good information. Therefore, they need to look at that information and what it tells them they should do, and look at whether they may get results from what they are doing because they are following good, evidence-based decision-making.

There is not too much else I can say about the bill, but I would ask members this: Why do we have Remembrance Day on November 11 every year? It is because we want to remember the wars. We want to remember the number of people who died. We want to remember the damage. We want to make sure it does not happen again. We want to commit ourselves to peace. We want to commit ourselves to preventing war.

Similarly, we want to commit ourselves to preventing pandemics that kill people. We need to be aware that the deaths of 57,000 Canadians could have been prevented if we had known and understood the pandemic when it first started. We now know what the pandemic did. We now know how to stop it. We now know the steps we need to take to remedy it. Let us remember this every year so we do not repeat the same mistakes we made and so we learn our lessons and use evidence-based, scientific methods to help protect the Canadian population.

It is a simple bill, and I hope all members will support it.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank and commend my colleague for introducing this bill and initiating this discussion. In her speech, she mentioned the probable causes of a pandemic. She said that there were going to be other pandemics because people travel a lot between countries and they could bring back viruses.

I have another theory on that subject, which involves the loss of biodiversity and the fact that people are living in closer and closer proximity—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. She will have to start again because the interpretation was not working.

Now that it is fixed, the hon. member has the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start over.

In her speech, my colleague mentioned the possibility of other pandemics linked to the spread of viruses resulting from frequent travel to different countries. However, science tells us that many links could be made to the loss of biodiversity, because of human proximity to animal species that normally have no contact with humans.

What does my colleague think about the possibility that more epidemics could result from the loss of biodiversity?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a very important point, and I think we know that zoonoses are on the rise. Once again, it is that people are in contact with the animal world more than we used to be in contact with them. We are visiting game farms. We have the ability to meet wild animals in the wild.

What we learned and must remember in this pandemic remembrance day is that zoonoses are very important. The transmission of viruses, bacteria and other diseases from animals to human beings is actually very possible.

I am glad the member asked that question because that is a reason for pandemic observance day. It is to remember that we have learned some things, and that is one of them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for this bill. If we are remembering the pandemic, one particularly critical fact to remember is that Canada had the terrible distinction of having more deaths per capita than any other country on earth in long-term care homes. Part of the confidence-and-supply agreement between the New Democrats and the Liberals is for the government to introduce a long-term care act.

Does my hon. colleague agree with the New Democrats that it is time we have mandatory standards in long-term care homes in this country? Those would be to have minimum standard hours of care for people in those homes, to have set care aid-to-patient ratios and, more importantly, to make sure that the conditions of work and the conditions of care are much better and that we treat the workers in those homes much better so we can reduce infection rates.

Does she agree with the NDP that it is time to put those mandatory standards in law in this country?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I think that is a good question, and I want to thank the member for bringing it up.

We need to remember one very important thing. While it is very important to look at standards of care, with the huge death toll we saw in long-term care homes, in fact, it is not a federal jurisdiction to do those things. Long-term care is provincial jurisdiction. We are, at the moment, negotiating with provinces to look at how we could get that done so we do not trample on provincial jurisdiction.

At the same time, we can work on standards and research through the Canadian Standards Association to see what it could look like, as soon as provinces decide to set those standards and set the kinds of decision-making available to the provinces to be able to deal with long-term care.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill because this is also a wake-up call for policy-makers every single year. The next time a pandemic hits, we cannot say it was unexpected. It is a wake-up call for us once a year to check whether we have taken enough measures to secure Canadians by identifying the critical items that are affected when the supply chains are disrupted and to find out what things we have done for senior citizens.

On the second point, the pandemic remembrance day is also important for the next generation of Canadians. The current students in the elementary schools and the future students at elementary schools should be made aware of what their elder siblings, their parents and their grandparents went through so that they are aware that they, too, one day, may be affected by this.

I would like the hon. member's comments on that.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am getting very good questions here.

I want to point out that we are talking about the COVID pandemic, but let us remember that measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria and small pox had all gone and died. They were not occurring anymore. They are coming back now because of vaccine deniers, people who are not vaccinating themselves. We are going to see polio once again, with children sitting in iron lungs because they have polio.

We must remember that we cannot deal with any disease unless we are bound by scientific knowledge. Right now, many people are walking away from the scientific knowledge that we got from learning about vaccines and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are unfortunately out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impact on our lives, was unprecedented.

In Canada and around much of the world, life as we knew it changed overnight because the pandemic was not just about the coronavirus. In many ways, it was also about how governments and health care systems responded to it. It was about the impact on our society, our relationships and our day-to-day activities.

The fallout of COVID-19 was not confined to a short period of time or just to some people. In fact, the reality is that the pandemic is barely in our rearview mirror. Its impact will be felt for years to come. We still have not fully assessed its impact on our society.

There are still lessons to be learned from the pandemic. Last week’s landmark and historic ruling that the Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unjustified is further proof that we have not fully moved beyond the pandemic and its fallout. The Prime Minister has yet to answer for his reckless abandonment of basic freedoms.

These are not historical events. These are current events. In that way, the proposal to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day would seem to be premature, but beyond that, it is not the response that Canadians are looking for. I have not talked to a single Canadian who has asked for this.

I have had the opportunity to talk to my constituents from Battlefords—Lloydminster about the impact of COVID-19 and the dysfunctions and the inefficiencies that it exposed. I have also had the opportunity to talk to health care workers, long-term care workers, seniors advocates, small business owners and countless others from across the country. What I can say with confidence, from those conversations, is that there is no outcry for a pandemic observance day. There are certainly, without a doubt, actions and responses that Canadians would like to see the federal government and other levels of government take in response to the pandemic, but this is not it.

The senator who introduced this bill in the other place has said that she proposed this bill with three objectives: to remember, to recover and to prepare. I have not heard any evidence that a national day of remembrance would help those who have experienced loss and grief as a result of the coronavirus.

While there may be commonalities among those who are grieving, each person’s journey is unique. How each person copes with their grief will look different. For many, the proposed day may also remind them about the difficult circumstances around their loss. In their final days and moments, many were isolated and many were alone. Many died alone. Because of the policies and practices put in place, loved ones were separated at the most difficult of times.

Humans are relational beings. The importance of being present in the lives of one another was, in some ways, abandoned by these practices. That is a major tragedy.

It went well beyond those who just had COVID-19. The senator, in proposing this day of remembrance, has indicated that this would be honouring our health care workers and our essential workers. I may agree with the sentiment that, through the difficulties and challenges of the pandemic, arose countless examples of goodness and selflessness. There were individuals who went above and beyond to support their communities, individuals who, despite the risk to themselves, showed up to work every single day.

These Canadians are admirable, and they certainly deserve to know that they are appreciated. I believe the practice of honouring others is very important. It is my strong belief that a culture of honour promotes respect and unity. Honour encourages and uplifts. It is why there are already designations such as National Nursing Week and National Physicians’ Day.

If we truly want to honour the sacrifices and work our health care workers and essential workers did during the pandemic, we would not respond with a national day of observance. We would respond by addressing the cracks and shortfalls that were exposed during the pandemic. We would work with different levels of government to ensure that they have the supports they need. We would not thank them for taking risks, then turn around and expect them to continue to take those same risks day in and day out. That is dishonouring.

In the same vein, the senator's intent to recover and prepare is not accomplished through a day of observance. As a society, we can only recover from the pandemic and prepare for any future health crisis by taking meaningful action. We need not simply put a bow on the pandemic and sweep the lessons to be learned under the rug. To recover and prepare we must do the hard work of learning lessons and then taking action. It is in that way that we will better honour those who were lost in the pandemic, those who experienced loss and every single Canadian who made countless sacrifices.

The pandemic fallout showed us that we lack manufacturing capabilities, as well as the devastating impacts of reliance and dependency on global supply chains. It highlighted a strain that exists in our health care sector and underscored massive labour shortages in health care. In fact, we are now seeing labour shortages in every sector across the country. It revealed the outdated infrastructure in our long-term care homes. It took a massive toll on the mental health and well-being of all Canadians. It forced so many small businesses to close their doors permanently. It also left countless others in a difficult state that will not be recovered overnight. It revealed the Prime Minister's willingness to divide Canadians and trample charter rights just to cling to power.

The pandemic exposed a lot of distrust in our institutions and a lot of the Liberal government's mismanagement. These are just some of the issues that arose out of the pandemic.

We all know that the COVID–19 pandemic's impact was far-reaching. Its impact will be felt for years to come. It is quite likely that, in the years ahead, we will come to better understand its widespread impact. The conversation we should be having as elected officials should be around those findings and those lessons being learned. If we want to remember, recover and prepare in a way that is meaningful and genuine, it is not going to be done through a pandemic observance day. That is not the response that Canadians want from the federal government or any other level of government.

Canadians want meaningful action that will ensure our infrastructure and systems are better prepared for a future crisis. Canadians want the Liberal government to be held accountable for its actions. They want to know that future governments will uphold their basic rights and freedoms. They want to see taxpayer dollars spent efficiently on supports and programs that will be there for them when they need it. The COVID–19 pandemic requires a response from the federal government, but the response needed is not a day of observance.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for introducing Bill S‑209, which designates March 11 as pandemic observance day. It has not been amended, and therefore the Bloc Québécois's position remains unchanged: We support the bill.

The Bloc Québécois stands with everyone in Quebec and Canada who was directly or indirectly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bloc Québécois would like to offer its condolences and sympathy to the families affected by the crisis, and to thank health care workers and all workers who could not work from home. They are many of them, and they are often forgotten. My speech will highlight their work and recall the many people who lost their lives to this pandemic.

Above all, I will approach the subject from an environmental perspective, which I am sure will surprise no one. I will talk about how pandemics are made. What I am going to say is not about the origins of COVID‑19, not at all, but about the fact that a significant number of emerging diseases of the past 40 years are zoonotic. Everyone has heard of SARS, Ebola, the avian flu, rabies. There are a dozen on the government site.

Serge Morand, a French environmentalist and biologist explains it well when he talks about the “dilution effect caused by man, who by encroaching on wild natural habitats and thereby creating more interactions, is accelerating the spread of new viruses by disrupting the animal ecosystem”. The issue is deforestation, industrial livestock production and globalization.

According to the Institut de recherche pour le développement, or IRD, website in France, at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic, Marie‑Monique Robin, an investigative journalist, producer and writer, co-produced with the IRD the documentary called La fabrique des pandémies, “The Pandemic Factory”. The documentary's key moments appear on the IRD's website.

For this project, Ms. Robin travelled to eight countries to understand the factors driving the emergence of infectious diseases. For the scientists who were questioned, the answer is clear: Environmental upheaval is the major cause of epidemics and pandemics. Some 20 researchers were filmed while doing their research and during their interactions with local communities. In the field in Asia, Africa and the Americas, scientists and indigenous peoples seek to understand how and how closely health and biodiversity are linked. The documentary explains that the species most likely to transmit new pathogens to us are the same ones that thrive when diversity decreases. The more biodiversity we lose, the more epidemics we have.

Science has shown that epidemics are becoming more and more frequent. We should expect more of them. The documentary warns us that if we continue to destroy our planet, we will experience an epidemic of pandemics, because biodiversity plays a protective role for humans. We need to rethink the way we live, so that damage to the environment is kept to a minimum. The problem is us, not the animals.

Now let us talk about the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Let us talk about the most vulnerable members of our society. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, clearly expressed his thoughts when he said, “My thoughts go out to the most vulnerable, those whom the pandemic has made even more vulnerable, and to the people living in isolation, poverty and anxiety who are suffering even more and have become more fragile because of this disease.”

The Bloc Québécois leader's words bring to mind another film I want to talk about. It is not a documentary, but it is a fairly realistic portrayal of the isolation seniors may have experienced. Tu ne sauras jamais is a dramatic film directed by Robin Aubert and Julie Roy. The camera work is effective. The slow pace captivates us and shows us exactly what these seniors went through: isolation, cold meals, distress, staff shortages. Martin Naud, age 88, plays an isolated senior in his room in a long-term care home during the COVID‑19 pandemic. He is an old man who does everything in his power to see the woman he loves one last time. Martin Naud is not an actor. He is not on IMDb. He lives in Repentigny and he is a member of the Bloc Québécois. He went to an audition and turned out to be the best person to really connect with audiences and convince them, even though he is not a professional. Take it from me: he did a great job.

There was so much suffering, particularly among seniors. Seniors who stayed in their homes or apartments experienced boredom, loneliness, anxiety, sickness and fear. There are those who died, those who lived in isolation and those who survived in fear.

I am thinking about health care workers, as I said at the beginning of this speech, and about others who did not have the option of protecting themselves by working from home, those who are too often forgotten because they are invisible to us, because our lives are moving too quickly and we are not paying attention to the people around us, to those essential workers. I will talk more about them in a few moments.

Of course, I want to start by talking about frontline staff, all types of health care workers: nurses, doctors and orderlies. They all put their lives at risk to care for COVID-19 patients. We are forever grateful to them. It was not easy for them either. Everyone in society was scared. Imagine how the people on the front lines felt, working directly with the sick.

Then there are young people. Of course, this age group was not as impacted by deaths. However, young people still made the collective sacrifice demanded by health restrictions. This meant many of them missed out on the opportunity to socialize at a pivotal moment in their lives. We must think of them and thank them for their courage and resilience at that time.

We must also acknowledge the work of the scientific community. Although imperfect by definition, our scientists' explanations informed our debates and answered our questions and concerns throughout the pandemic. We are fortunate to have been able to count on them and to still be able to count on them. My colleague from Vancouver Centre talked about how science helps us better understand.

Finally, let me go back to the invisible workers I mentioned earlier. Many of them are women and young people. They may be grocery store clerks, pharmacy cashiers or shelf stockers. They may be delivery people, cleaners, construction workers, subway drivers or bus drivers. They could not work from home. They were essential during the pandemic, and they are no less essential now to our society's ability to function effectively. Too often, however, they remain invisible and forgotten. The pandemic shone a light on them, as workers too often relegated to the shadows.

In conclusion, do we really want to go through something like this again? Do want to mourn the many people who will die, relive the same fear and isolation?

To connect back to the start of my speech, without biodiversity, life is not possible. Our fates are inextricably linked. By preserving biodiversity, we reduce the risks and impact of global warming and its effects on our health. However, we must change now. Otherwise, we are treading the same path toward extinction as today's endangered wildlife.

Biodiversity is our home. We can still save it, but we must act quickly. That will require courage on the part of politicians.

Do we have that courage?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I stand on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra to respect the reality of the losses they suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I want to take this time to honour the lives of their family members who were lost during the pandemic and recognize that many of them died alone in those early days. I want to acknowledge the family members who could not be with their loved ones and still have not been able to heal from that trauma. I see them, and I recognize how hard it was and how hard it remains.

At a National Pensioners Federation meeting recently, I heard from seniors from across the country that the hardest part of the pandemic was having friends and loved ones pass in hospitals or in long-term care homes. That is heartbreaking both for those who have passed and for those left behind, who could not say goodbye in person. These were the realities of the pandemic then, and they stay with us now.

I want to take a moment to follow up on something my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said earlier. Although this is about the pandemic observance day bill, this is the time for the Liberals to step forward and make sure they do the work, take the responsibility for living up to the confidence and supply agreement and get those national standards for long-term care. No person in Canada should die in long-term care from a preventable disease.

The hurt people suffered during COVID-19 can be recognized with Bill S-209 by having a pandemic observance day each year, and that is why the NDP is supporting it.

I want to note that caregivers also suffered during the pandemic. For nurses and long-term care workers, their work was and is exceptional. I know they deserve better wages, better working conditions and much more respect. The NDP will continue to fight for them. I say this to caregivers watching my speech tonight: We will continue to fight for them.

The care economy, as well as the treatment of care workers in Canada, is an ongoing crisis. Care, paid and unpaid, is the backbone of Canada's economy, and it employs one in five Canadians. The physical, psychological and emotional care of people is essential work and needs to be recognized and compensated appropriately, yet this is not done in Canada, because of gender discrimination.

Women are overrepresented in care and in the care economy. According to Statistics Canada, they comprise 80% of workers in health occupations, 68% of teacher roles and professorships and more than 95% of child care workers. All are underpaid and undervalued by our society and economy. I should not say by our society. I should say by these governments, the Liberals and the Conservatives before them.

This needs to change; it is wrong. The pandemic has showed us that neglecting care workers as an underpinning of our economy, a hidden area that has not received the recognition it deserves, hurts society and our health care system. We especially see this in Conservative-led provinces, where child care and health care are fodder for private profiteers.

Along with gender discrimination, racism is intertwined with the care economy's systems. Immigration policies for care workers are designed to control access to status and citizenship. Newcomers, undocumented people and low-income women are especially vulnerable to the exploitation and precarious working conditions of care. Black and Filipino women are overrepresented within the care economy, and they are some of the most exploited workers in Canada. This needs to change, and the Liberal government can make that change today. The NDP supports status for all.

The pandemic has shown that care workers are essential. Immigrant care workers deserve their status; they should also be able to bring their families to Canada. The collective prejudice towards care workers has resulted in an unfounded belief that care work is unskilled work and, therefore, cannot receive better compensation. This too is wrong.

Now is the time for the Liberal government to step up and end discrimination of care work. It is time for the Liberals to do the work required to improve working conditions for nurses and other care economy workers, and to immediately fulfill their promise to make the Canada caregiver credit refundable for any family caring for loved ones at home, to compensate some of that unpaid work that all of our society relies on.

First Lady Rosalynn Carter, who passed recently, is quoted as saying that there are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers and those who need caregivers. The COVID-19 pandemic certainly proved that.

Caregivers have gone above and beyond to support our communities, but while many stepped up to help their community, partisan politicians used it as an opportunity to advance their ideologies. Easy public health measures, like masks, were politicized and weaponized in our community. As the disability critic, I can say that the rejection of that simple gesture to keep people safe left the most vulnerable at risk.

Persons with disabilities have spoken out about the reality of being socially isolated and experiencing worsening anxiety and depression during the pandemic, because even a trip to the grocery store was not safe due to the lack of masks. The isolation has been particularly acute for folks living with disabilities, who were medically advised to reduce their contacts with others, and for people living with mobility restrictions or who were and are immunocompromised.

Today we are seeing the effects of increased loneliness and that two years without socialization have had a profound impact on the mental health of society. At this time, the Liberals have continued to hold back national funding for mental health resources. This is unconscionable. To leave low-income individuals unable to connect to private counselling, which is all that is available to them, is leaving them behind.

I will echo my NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni by saying the Liberals need to live up to their promise and spend the billions they are holding back on for mental health funding. In addition, with the reality of long COVID, I must mention that the Liberals are also withholding implementing the Canada disability benefit. This, too, must change. It is unacceptable that in this time of rising costs of living, the Liberals would leave persons with disabilities behind and not recognize how the pandemic has exacerbated their lived reality.

Before I close, I want to take a moment to recognize the incredible work that community members in the riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra did during the pandemic to rescue and redirect good, healthy food. Organizations like the Tri-Cities Moms Group, United Way, the Immigrant Link Centre Society, CityReach and The People's Pantry all stepped up to ensure that food from restaurants that needed to close, airlines that cancelled flights and food suppliers that had excess food was redistributed and not wasted. That work continues today as, unfortunately, more and more Canadians are forced to the food bank because the Liberal government and the Conservatives before them have been cutting and gutting affordable housing for decades.

In this time of pandemic observance, I will close by saying that the NDP supports this bill, but the Liberal government needs to implement the standard of care that I mentioned; it needs to revisit extending that CEBA loan that we have asked for, and it needs to really get to work on improving working conditions for caregivers in this country. People in our communities deserve no less.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here with all of my colleagues this evening as the House has returned for its first week back sitting.

Before I begin, I wanted to say one or two personal remarks. This morning I was able to return to my riding for a wonderful announcement with the Attorney General, the public safety minister, the Premier of Ontario and a number of his cabinet ministers in relation to an investment we are making to tackle gun and gang violence.

When I returned to my riding, I found out from very good family friends of my wife and mine, whom we have known for nearly 10 years in the riding, and who are family to us and vice versa, that the patriarch of the family had passed away, so I was able to go to the visitation this afternoon. I rearranged the schedule, just as we all do in the House, and I was able to pay my respects to the family, who are dear friends of mine.

The funeral is tomorrow morning, and I paid my respects this evening. However, I wanted to say to Domenico and Carm, as well as to their sons, Matthew and Michael, and their wives, Mia and Vanessa, along with the grandchildren and all the siblings, that their patriarch, the grandfather Serafino, much like millions of immigrants and newcomers who have come to this country, came to Canada for the opportunity that Canada has provided for all of us. They and their family are in my thoughts. He lived a full life, and he was one tough son of a gun from that generation. I send them my condolences.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-209, an act respecting pandemic observance day. I am also pleased to announce the government's support of the bill.

It is not often that bills are tabled in the House that we can all rally around, but I think this is one of those times. Bill S-209 proposes to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day throughout Canada. It was on March 11, 2020, that the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.

What would this day be all about? First and foremost, it would be a day to honour the over 6.8 million people who have died of COVID-19 globally, more than 51,000 of whom were in Canada. I will take a moment to let those words and those numbers sink in. COVID-19 is now the deadliest disaster in Canadian history, excluding acts of war. It has surpassed the 1918 influenza pandemic, which led to nearly 50,000 deaths in Canada.

We can imagine if, in early March 2020, someone had suggested that 51,000 people living in Canada would be gone forever due to this terrible virus, it would have been unfathomable, but here we are, almost four years, and too many deaths, later. Collectively, we have lost friends, parents, grandparents and siblings. Nothing can change that, but a pandemic observance day could help us acknowledge these profound losses. We should let this day forever be a formal recognition of our collective grief. This day would also be an opportunity for us to recognize all the frontline workers who experienced higher risks of COVID-19 exposure in their work environment while ensuring continuity of critical services.

The pandemic has placed unprecedented pressures and demands on Canada's health workforce and health care system. Since March 2020, health care professionals have extended themselves to meet the increased demands of COVID-19, but they are now stretched dangerously thin. Reports of burnout are increasing, and a significant number of health care professionals, particularly nurses, are considering leaving their profession altogether.

Studies have shown that frontline workers are more likely to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and/or major depressive disorder than those who are not frontline workers. The pandemic has contributed to labour shortages across Canada, most critically in the health care sector.

Without human health resources, there is simply no health care. Without those brave men and women who are nurses, emergency room workers and ambulance attendants, there is no health care. While this symbolic day of observance would not fix these problems, recognizing this outstanding group of Canadians would signal how grateful Canadians are for their work and dedication.

Finally, this day of observance would acknowledge the serious impact COVID-19 has had on the health of Canada's population, both on health in the traditional sense and on mental health. While deaths are the ultimate, irreversible consequences of the pandemic, millions of Canadians have contracted and continue to contract COVID-19.

Over 4.5 million cases have been confirmed in Canada, but we all know that this is a gross underestimate since the emergence of the omicron variant in December 2021, when we began increasingly to rely on at-home rapid testing. By now, we have all had personal connections with people who have contracted the virus, some more than once. While the majority of those infected will recover, some continue to experience ongoing physical and/or psychological symptoms. Based on the World Health Organization's estimate that at least 10% of those infected develop a post-COVID-19 condition, there could be thousands of Canadians who suffer from ongoing symptoms. Many consequences of this condition and its negative long-term impacts are yet to be understood.

In addition to the long-term physical impacts associated with contracting the virus, many Canadians also experienced worsening mental health during the pandemic. For some, the pandemic experience was coupled with the stress of a job loss, isolation from loved ones, restrictions on community, learning and recreational activities, and/or the need to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. The breadth and depth of these challenges negatively affected the feelings and perceptions of mental health and well-being of many Canadians, especially among women, younger Canadians and frontline workers. Social distancing restrictions strained social ties, causing feelings of isolation and damaging mental health. Many people across the country have faced hardships as a result of the pandemic, as we all know.

Again, while a national day of observance will not solve these issues, it would at least signal the importance of recognizing our losses while continuing to work towards understanding and addressing the health, socio-economic and broader consequences of COVID-19. I do hope that everyone here this evening can rally behind this bill.

Since the pandemic was declared, COVID-19 has had an immeasurable impact on every single Canadian and every single Canadian family. It has impacted the way we have all worked, learned, connected with friends and family, and lived our daily lives.

It is important to recognize that this national day of observance is not prescriptive. Everyone will be able to commemorate this day as they wish, leaving room for the imagination and creativity of individuals and communities, recognizing that there is a wide range of potential activities to memorialize this day.

Individuals and groups can recognize this day in a way that will reflect the nature and intensity of their suffering, their needs and their communities. For governments, this could be a day for reflection, a time for an assessment of what worked and what did not.

Every March 11, from here on, going forward, will serve to remind Canadians of the tragic events and the display of solidarity and empathy within communities. It will be a day to come together on what we have learned and how to collectively define a new way forward.

I am thankful to have had this time to speak to this bill this evening and to indicate the government's support for a pandemic observance day.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, what a striking piece of legislation we have in front of us from a Liberal member of Parliament. In the same period here that the government has had its hand slapped by the court for the way it acted during the pandemic, we have a Liberal member who wants us to be aware and have an awareness day for the pandemic. By the way, it is sort of a running joke here that the Liberals' solution to every problem, the go-to for every issue, is an awareness day.

It is very rare that members of Parliament have an opportunity to actually bring forward a private member's bill for debate and a vote. However, instead of putting forward substantive changes to the law, things that would impact people's lives, the member across the way, who is not a new member and who has had a long time to think about what kind of private member's bill to put forward, chose an awareness day, as if anybody was not aware of the pandemic. However, let us be aware of the pandemic while we are here and while the member opposite said that her biggest idea for a private member's bill is a day dedicated to awareness about the pandemic.

Let us be aware of what happened during the pandemic, and let us be aware of what the Federal Court said about what this government did during the pandemic. We have a ruling from the Federal Court that the decision of the government to use the Emergencies Act during the pandemic was unconstitutional and was a violation of the charter.

It is interesting because this government has, for a long time, tried to wrap itself in the charter. However, it has shown complete disdain for the charter when it gets in the way of its desire to demonize people who disagree with it and to divide Canadians. This has become clear. What typifies the value system of the Prime Minister is not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but his admiration for the basic dictatorships that he sees in other countries. That has been clear from what he said, and that has been clear from what he did during the pandemic.

During the pandemic, we had very difficult situations. Governments around the world tried to grapple with how they could respond to the challenges and how they could adjust quickly to those realities. I recall standing here in this place and making a simple recommendation. I said that we should look to and learn from the countries that were the most successful at reducing transmission, and those tended to be our East Asian democratic partners, countries that put in place effective border measures at the beginning and that built up a stockpile of necessary equipment and that took a collaborative approach around things like masking and contact tracing.

I said very clearly at the beginning that we should be learning from countries like Taiwan and South Korea. Unfortunately, the World Health Organization failed to engage with Taiwan, in particular, and learn from what Taiwan was doing well. I asked questions in the House as well about the failure of the Liberal government to engage with Taiwan and to push the World Health Organization to engage with Taiwan.

If we look at those early months, when the government said that any limitations on what happens at the border would be unacceptable. Representatives of the government said that masks did not work. All kinds of things were said in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, on which the government subsequently reversed itself.

On some level, I think Canadians would have some sympathy for leaders who made mistakes in the early days of the pandemic if they had the humility to acknowledge that they did not know everything, that they understood the challenges and that they were doing their best to learn as things went along. However, the government showed a complete lack of humility in relation to the differences of perspective that existed in the context of the pandemic. In fact, this government tried to marginalize and demonize those who had a different point of view.

That demonization escalated as the process went along. When vaccines became available, of course Canadians were reading what they could, trying to understand, trying to learn about the approach they wanted to take and evaluate personal health choices in the context of the information that was coming out. However, the Prime Minister tried to discriminate against and demonize people who chose not to get the vaccine.

Particularly bizarrely, the Prime Minister tried to enforce a requirement where, for people who were working alone in the cab of their truck and did not have interactions with other people, for the most part, in the course of their work, as their nature of their work was to sit behind the wheel by themselves and drive, the effect of the policy he imposed was that they could not engage in cross-border trucking if they were not vaccinated. That provoked a strong response from Canadians; it was not just the policy but also the rhetoric, the name-calling against Canadians who had made different choices.

I think there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to try to show leadership and say, “Look, here is my view. Here is the approach we feel we have to take, but I understand this is difficult and I want to bring Canadians together.” He did not take that approach. He wanted to try to divide Canadians for political reasons.

He had an opportunity again, when protesters came to Ottawa, to try to defuse the situation and to try to listen to the conversations that were happening, but he persisted in trying to use the events politically, including through the draconian imposition of the Emergencies Act, measures, or measures like them, that had not been used since another Trudeau was prime minister. These draconian measures have since been determined by the court to be unconstitutional.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, on December 14, 2023, the environment minister admitted at committee to having called at least five senators about Bill C-234, a Conservative bill that would remove the carbon tax for Canadian farmers. The minister promised to hand over a list of senators he called. It has been 48 days, yet the minister has not provided the list.

My question is very straightforward: Whom did the minister call, and how did they vote?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in tonight's debate and to once again explain to my colleagues why we need to put a price on pollution.

I appreciate the opportunity to explain why a price on pollution is the right thing to do, not only for ourselves but also for our children.

When we consider all of the extreme weather events that have impacted Canada recently, it appears quite clear that the time for action is now. Just last year, as a result of climate change, Canadians had to deal with the catastrophic impacts of historic tornadoes, ice storms, wildfires, floods, etc. We could see the smoke right here in the chamber.

Of course, these severe events that are becoming more and more frequent also take a toll on our infrastructure. The truth is that we have to act now to prevent the situation from getting even worse. The good news is that we know what to do and how to do it.

The experts also agree that our approach, putting a price on pollution, is the best solution. It sends a clear message that pollution is not free. Pollution has a cost. Without a price on pollution, what incentive would there be to pollute less?

The best part of our plan is that in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, we return the bulk of the proceeds from the price on carbon to Canadians. In fact, eight out of 10 households in these provinces are getting more money back through their quarterly climate action incentive payments than they pay as a result of our price on pollution. Under the government's plan, this means that a family of four living in one of these provinces can receive up to $1,500 while also fighting climate change.

At the same time, we understand that it continues to be a tough time financially for many Canadian families, as elevated global inflation is unfortunately still a reality. However, we can see that things are slowly getting better. Inflation is at 3.4%, down from its peak of 8.1%, and wage growth has now outpaced inflation for 11 months in a row.

In addition, private sector economists now project that Canada will avoid the recession that many people were expecting. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are both forecasting that Canada will post the strongest growth in the G7 in 2025. Nevertheless, many Canadians still need help to make ends meet. That is why we are implementing new measures to make life more affordable.

As we made clear in our fall economic statement, our government continues to deliver an economic plan that supports a strong middle class, from building more homes faster to taking concrete action to help stabilize prices, make life more affordable and protect Canadians with mortgages. Let me give an example.

The government understands that Canadians are getting really frustrated with the price of groceries, and we want to give them some relief at the checkout. That is why we amended the Competition Act to enhance competition in the grocery sector. This will help bring down costs and ensure that Canadians have more choice in where they buy their groceries.

We also amended the Competition Act to empower the Competition Bureau to block collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby. This will help save money for Canadians for other priorities.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what to say. This is insane. I asked a very simple question about the carbon tax and Bill C-234, and I heard about the Competition Act, which has nothing to do with the carbon tax. I do not know how that is.

I asked about how pricing on pollution is making life more affordable. Bill C-234 is going to cost Canadian farmers $1 billion. How is that making it more affordable? Why did the member choose not to answer the question?

Why did she read for the Prime Minister's Office? Why did the Prime Minister and the minister not come down and answer these questions?

Canadian farmers and Canadians want to know why this carbon tax is costing them so much. It is dragging our whole country down, and the member, I am sorry to say, chose to blow off Canadians and just ignore the whole process.

Therefore, I would ask—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians see around them every day the cost of not acting on climate change, with forest fires, violent storms and tornadoes.

Severe weather events are becoming more frequent as a result of climate change, and they have a significant impact on Canada's infrastructure and economy.

Experts all agree that putting a price on pollution is the right approach to fight climate change. The best part is that the bulk of the proceeds go back to Canadians.

However, we understand that many Canadians are struggling with elevated inflation. That is why we are moving forward also with measures to make life more affordable.