House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 48% of the vote.
Rail Transportation October 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an incompetent government. That is what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report on railway safety confirms.
It is simply irresponsible to cut the railway safety budget by 19% when the amount of oil shipped by rail has gone up from 500 carloads to 140,000 carloads.
Out of respect for the victims of Lac-Mégantic, will the Minister of Transport finally explain how she will correct the lax approach taken by her government?
Maxime Trépanier October 18th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, on August 11, 2013, the entire region of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu was saddened by the tragic death of Maxime Trépanier, an avid hot-air balloon pilot. Mr. Trépanier was only 27 years old.
Maxime came from a very good family. I know his family because I had my ballooning baptism with his father, Normand, and his brother, Danny. I remember having the honour of being baptized with a bottle of bubbly by his mother, Line, who is missing him terribly.
This father of two young children, a three-year-old and a baby of six months, lost his life trying to help a fellow pilot in trouble. His death was mourned by the entire community of pilots and all members of the International Balloon Festival of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, the largest of its kind in Canada. The festival was celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.
Rest in peace, Maxime. Those who knew you will remember you as a generous man who was always ready to help others.
Petitions April 24th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents in my riding, I have the honour to present a petition that opposes the changes to employment insurance, including the changes with regard to suitable employment and reasonable and customary efforts to obtain suitable employment.
Anaphylaxis April 19th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I am very honoured to rise today to speak to Motion No. 230, which calls on the government to take the appropriate measures necessary to ensure that Canadians living with anaphylaxis are able to maintain a high quality of life.
Nearly 500,000 Canadians live with this medical condition. Approximately 50% of Canadians know someone who suffers from at least one food allergy, which goes to show that this issue affects a huge part of the population.
There are treatments available for this serious medical condition, which affects many Canadians and their families, and we know what causes these serious reactions. However, the federal government's efforts so far, while laudable, are not enough.
The NDP obviously supports this motion. However, I have some reservations about its scope and I lament the fact that there are no specific measures.
We have to keep in mind that anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction. It has rapid onset and can be fatal. It typically involves a number of signs and symptoms, affecting one or more systems of the body. The most common cause is food. In fact very common foods that are widely used in processed products account for 93% of anaphylaxis cases in children. That is why proper labelling is one of the most important actions to take.
There is the need to raise awareness among Canadians who are at risk, especially parents whose children might experience anaphylactic shock. Also, there is the need to improve primary care, community care, access to medication insurance, education, literacy and the need to review the exemption provided to brewers under the new labelling regulations.
Unfortunately, the current government has given priority to its irresponsible budget cuts and has cut $36 billion from health transfers to the provinces. That is a huge amount of money, and the cuts are having terrible consequences for Canadian families.
What we keep seeing is that this Conservative government wants to try to balance the budget, but it wants to do so at the provinces' expense. There has been one reform after another, and the provincial governments are being inundated with new expenses as the federal government keeps taking a step back.
Since the Conservative government came to power, it has not been able to balance its budget without creating a deficit. When it comes to good governance, we have done and seen better. Instead of conducting economic experiments that are bad for the public, the government should adjust its priorities and make decisions based on what Canadians need, especially in terms of health care.
Let us talk about cost. The overall cost associated with anaphylaxis in Canada is estimated to be $15 billion. This includes both health care costs and costs associated with lost productivity. This is another measure that taxpayers have to pay for from their own pockets. Rather than granting useless tax relief to banking institutions and giving subsidies to oil companies, could this government, from time to time, also take care of ordinary citizens who are only asking to pay their fair share and benefit from the services that they are entitled to receive?
It is too bad that the government nurtures a political culture that benefits the corporate world and harms Canadians. The way people who have serious allergies and who are at risk of anaphylactic reaction are treated is, unfortunately, yet another example of this.
Once again, in this specific case, the Conservative government, guided by its ideology that always seeks to boost the profits of large corporations, chose to put the interests of industry above those of the Canadian families affected by this serious health problem.
Let us talk about labelling. Food products containing allergens should be labelled as such without exception; however, unfortunately, the Conservatives decided that this was not necessary.
The same thing happened with sodium, trans-fats and energy drinks. The Conservatives are once again showing us that they are clearly biased toward the business world to the detriment of consumer protection.
The new regulation on labelling that has been in effect since August 2012 was well received by the various stakeholders involved; however, there has been criticism of some of the exceptions. I am convinced that people living under the threat of anaphylactic shock and the parents of children with this condition are under enough stress. They deserve better than to be the victims of the Conservatives' political gifts.
Anaphylaxis Canada and my NDP colleagues spoke out against the exception made for beer companies, which are not required to indicate the presence of allergens in their products, and for producers of deli meats, baked goods and other bulk products. The shortcomings of this regulation mitigate the strength of the motion before us, which therefore does not properly serve its function of protecting Canadians who are at risk.
It is important to remember that the most vulnerable people are young children. We need to help parents at home, staff in schools and daycare providers find ways to reduce exposure to potentially fatal allergens. The most effective measure remains clear, specific identification.
There are other measures that could also be taken. First and foremost, we have a duty to educate people, whether they are at risk or not. Being prepared to act quickly is also crucial. We also need to improve primary care as well as community care and, above all, access to health services.
Anyone with allergies who could suffer anaphylactic shock should always carry an epinephrine autoinjector, which can only be obtained with a doctor's prescription and must be renewed every year. In our deficient medical system, what should be merely a formality can easily become a real nightmare. An autoinjector costs over $100 a year, which many families who do not have access to medical insurance cannot afford without making other sacrifices.
This was confirmed by a Léger Marketing poll conducted in 2012, which revealed that over half of all Canadians who live with anaphylaxis do not always carry an epinephrine autoinjector or have quick access to one.
Furthermore, the survey reveals that a majority of them do not know how to use the device properly. Instead of taxing hospital parking, which is stupid, the Conservative government should instead work on providing Canadians with access to the treatments they really need.
It is obvious that much remains to be done in terms of public education and awareness. The government must stop delegating this responsibility to the industry and must take the lead in implementing a coherent strategy in keeping with the demands of organizations that support the people affected.
A great deal of research is still needed with respect to identifying the pathogenesis, the triggers, and the prevalence of risk factors, as well as managing anaphylaxis. These must be the priorities.
The federal government has a duty to encourage research, especially by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. However, one of the most discouraging items in the main estimates tabled in the House in March is the envelope for the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, which was reduced by $36 million, including $33 million in grants.
In closing, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, I will support Motion No. 230. The main reason is that I believe that we can improve the life of people who suffer from anaphylaxis. However, this motion will not be truly effective unless the government puts in place practical measures to deal with this condition.
It is obvious that the next government—and I am convinced it will be an NDP government—will have to address this matter again in order to find real solutions.
Business of Supply April 18th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her passionate and very relevant speech. She identified some very pertinent points, such as the lack of consultation with first nations and the problem of interfering in provincial areas of jurisdiction.
She represents the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which has its share of natural resources. In the context of natural resource development, how does she think the locals feel about these types of agreements and compromises? I am not just talking about aboriginal communities, but also the Canadian public in general.
Employment Insurance March 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance should start by listening to the workers, the employers and the elected officials who are telling her that her reform makes no sense. If she would come out of her bubble a little, and really went to meet with the workers on the ground, perhaps she would understand the disastrous consequences of her reform.
Does the minister understand that there is often an enormous difference between theory and practice?
Employment Insurance March 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it is the minister who is responsible for butchering employment insurance. She is responsible—
Employment Insurance March 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance should start by listening to the workers, the employers and the elected officials who are telling her—
Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012 March 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for the exceptional and always very focused work he does on the Standing Committee on Finance.
I have to agree with him. These bills are extremely complex, from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective, and it is important that the committees take the time to study these points properly.
Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012 March 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. A number of members have mentioned the fact that there have not been any technical amendments to Canada's tax provisions for 11 years.
Every government should be more diligent when it comes to updating tax provisions. The reality is that tax professionals—which we are not—who, every day, help businesses and individuals make the right tax choices need certainty and clarity.
The fact that it has taken a decade to implement these amendments has only added to their lack of clarity and certainty in giving advice to their clients.