Taylor Bachrach

[Post-Secondary Education, November 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with a health care worker in Terrace, whose job as a psychiatric occupational therapist is critical in addressing the toxic drug and mental health crises in our communities. She is the only graduate from her class who is working in a northern rural community, but here is the thing: The government's student loan forgiveness program excludes occupational therapists. This is clearly an oversight.

Very simply, will the government correct its error and ensure that people like this person in Terrace, B.C., get the loan forgiveness that they so deserve?

[Persons with Disabilities, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the U.S. Department of Transport fined American Airlines $50 million for its horrible treatment of people with disabilities. In Canada, people have been dropped on the floor, they have had their wheelchairs broken and lost, one even had to drag themselves off a plane by their arms. What was the government's response? The minister held a summit with plenty of nice words and zero action.

Why is it that the Americans get a secretary of transport that stands up for passengers while here in Canada we get ministers of transport that continually cave to the big airlines?

[Privilege, October 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I think my question is very similar to that of my friend from the Bloc.

I have been here for five years, and I think that this is the first time I have seen the House in violent agreement with the content of a motion while members are refusing to vote on that same motion so a committee could do the work that is called for in the motion. If I were a Canadian sitting up in the gallery, I would be rightly confused by the little game being played. The reality, of course, is that the Conservatives are simply holding up the business of the House as a way to try to force the production of these documents, something which, incidentally, is not called for in the content of the motion being debated.

Why does my friend from the Conservative Party feel it is appropriate for the business of the House to be held up for so long when what he is calling for, and what he just spoke to, is not actually in the content of the motion his party has put forward?

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Durham. Earlier in the debate, we heard from one of his Conservative colleagues that in his view, due to the egregious behaviour and performance at Sport Canada, the organization should be entirely disbanded. I wonder if the member shares that view.

[RCMP Allegations of Foreign Interference by the Government of India, October 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted the need to keep Canadians safe from foreign interference. There is confidential information that would allow the leader of his party to ensure that people in his party as well as other Canadians are more safe and, yet, the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to get the security clearance necessary to see that information. This is a case of wilful blindness when the lives of Canadians are on the line.

I would like the member to explain to Canadians who are wondering why every other political leader of every party in this place has received the necessary clearance to see those documents and his leader refuses to.

[Kirsten Patrick, October 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to mark the passing of Kirsten Patrick, a young 34-year-old resident of Smithers whose life ended last Monday at the Smithers District Hospital. I had known Kirsten for most of the time that I have lived in Smithers. I remember her broad smile. I remember the way that she greeted everyone on Main Street, including our mayor.

Kirsten lived an unimaginably difficult life, one marked by trauma, addiction, violence, homelessness and loss. For the past several years, she lived in a tent. She was a fighter, a survivor, a neighbour and a friend.

My heart today goes out to her mom Marina, to her kids, to her partner Casey and to everyone who knew and loved her. Kirsten's life mattered and she will be deeply missed.

[Privilege, October 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the good Canadian citizens watching the debate at home, or here in the gallery, would be forgiven if they thought, listening to my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Leamington's speech, that the motion were somehow about getting the documents. The motion is a very good one. It has nothing to do with getting the documents; it has to do with referring to committee the matter of the Liberals' refusal to give the documents. At committee, I assume we could get some answers for Canadians about the scandal. That seems like important work to me.

It reminds me of a quote from Jerry Maguire: “You had me at ‘hello’.” We want to vote on the Conservatives' motion to send the matter off to committee, hold some hearings and get the answers. Why do they seem so insistent on not taking “yes” for an answer? How many times are we going to have to stand here and say, “You had us at ‘hello’. Let us go to committee. Show me the money.” That is right: Show me the committee and let us get the answers for Canadians as soon as possible.

Why do Canadians have to wait, through this circus of a debate, to get the answers they so rightly deserve?

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of my friend from Northumberland—Peterborough South. Near the beginning, I think he was arguing that the importance of having these long-drawn-out filibuster days of debate is that sometimes miraculous things happen in the course of debate. I am wondering whether that miracle happened during his 20-minute speech or how I would know it happened, because I did not feel anything.

Will the miracle come in the questions and comments period, or did the miracle just not happen and I will have to wait until his colleagues get up later in the day for that miraculous thing to happen so we can send this to committee, which, after all, is the point of the motion?

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate for a Monday. Having just flown across the country and landed in the midst of this, I am trying to understand the Conservative logic. It reminds me of an eight-year-old student asking his teacher if he can go to the washroom and then standing there for 10 minutes with his legs crossed, hopping up and down reiterating how badly he needs to go to the washroom.

We plan to vote in favour of the motion. The Bloc Québécois plans to vote in favour of the motion. That represents a majority of the House, so immediately, we could vote on the motion and send it to committee. After all, it calls for the committee to do the work of getting to the bottom of this very important issue on behalf of Canadians. The irony is that the member is not only obstructing the business of the House, but obstructing the work of the committee that the motion itself calls for.

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question. I read through the motion and the amendment, and essentially the motion is to refer the government's refusal to produce the documents to committee and to direct the committee to call certain witnesses. The implication is that the committee's work is what would lead to greater accountability and get Canadians the answers that they deserve on this important matter.

If that is the case, and assuming that Canadians deserve those answers as quickly as possible, why would we not vote on the motion, refer it to committee so the witnesses could be called, and undertake that important work so we could get answers as quickly as possible? I do not understand the rationale or the strategy for drawing out the debate for days when the actual work should be done at committee.