SoVote

Feb/10/22 10:58:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to receive this question. The member is correct when she speaks about working collaboratively and looking forward. That is why we need to be both collaborative and responsible in our actions. The member speaks about timing. I am rarely political and I try to resist the temptation from time to time, but I would point out that if there is an issue on which we should be speaking more clearly about timelines, it is about when we are all going to get vaccinated. The member forCalgary Nose Hill said last year that we would have to wait until 2030 before we had enough vaccines to vaccinate all Canadians. We are in 2022. It is time for all members of Parliament to be vaccinated.

131 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Feb/10/22 10:58:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I agree that vaccination is our main ally, since there will be other variants, and that will pose a risk. However, the variants are coming from developing countries. We are starting to talk about a fourth dose, which some people in Quebec and Canada have already received, but there are still three billion people around the world who have not had their first. Based on profit and the law of supply and demand, pharmaceutical companies are prioritizing the countries that can pay the most, namely the wealthy countries. I know that there is COVAX and that Canada has shipped out doses, but it is still a competitive market, meaning that we keep the lion’s share of the doses for us and send out our surplus out of generosity. There is still no strong international strategy for resolving this issue. My question for the minister is the following: What is Canada’s position on waiving the patents?

171 words

All Topics

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Feb/10/22 10:59:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his question. He represents a lovely riding I know well, since I have friends who live there. He is right. For us to be done with this pandemic one day—and that is not today—it will have to be over everywhere. That involves vaccinating and protecting everyone in the world. The good news is that the Canadian government was one of the first countries to support and help establish COVAX and it is still today one of its largest contributors, sixth in the world, in terms of getting everyone vaccinated.

108 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/10/22 11:00:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was going to ask a different question, but listening to the minister's response to my colleague from the Bloc, I feel compelled to ask more and push him a bit further on global vaccine equity. We know that Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna, the three major developers of vaccines, make about $65,000 a minute. We also know that they developed those COVID vaccines with $8 billion of public funds. We also know that the Liberal government has not agreed to the TRIPS waiver and has continued to kick that down the road. We are going into our third year of this pandemic, and the Liberal government still will not support something that would allow other countries to create their own vaccines. Realistically, saying that none of us are done until all of us are done does not work if the Liberals are not prepared to do any of the work. Why will the government not take those very simple steps that would protect people over big pharma?

171 words

All Topics

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Feb/10/22 11:01:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is correct. Canada should always and will always need to be open to talking and working with international partners on precisely that topic of TRIPS and the patent-related agenda. However, in relation to the previous question, I am going to add that Canada committed 200 million doses of vaccines in 2020, and half of those vaccines have already been delivered. In addition, we committed to $2.5 billion in additional assistance, because it is not only the vaccine product itself that is needed, but also the technology, the infrastructure, the health care resources and the communication campaign where there is vaccine hesitancy. Therefore, it is a combination of being strong on the products, being strong on the international agenda and being strong on the supports that are needed to make sure that everyone in the world gets vaccinated and is protected against this serious disease.

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 11:02:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could respond to an article in today's Winnipeg Free Press. It is from the public health officer, and it states: Dr. Jazz Atwal, deputy chief provincial public health officer, said Wednesday restrictions will only be lifted in Manitoba when it is safe to do so. “A handful of individuals who protest have no bearing on what public health recommends,” Atwal said at the COVID-19 media briefing. “It is as simple as that.” I wonder if the minister could provide a comment on why it is so important that we listen to health care professionals.

107 words

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Feb/10/22 11:03:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are three things. The first is that health care workers have been burdened and stressed over the last 22 months. When we discuss these things, we should always have them in mind. We need to look after them because they care for us. The second thing is that we need to understand that the only sustainable way to end restrictions and lockdowns that are decided upon by provinces and territories is through vaccination. The third thing, therefore, is again inviting the new Leader of the Opposition to ask all members of her caucus to get vaccinated.

99 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Feb/10/22 11:04:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I say unequivocally that it is time to end the blockades, especially at our international borders. They are hurting our communities, our farmers and our businesses, and our economy needs to recover. I know that none of the people involved with the blockades wants to hurt their fellow citizens, but it is starting to be that way, and I ask them to remove those blockades. I would also say unequivocally that it is time to end the mandates and the restrictions. As the minister knows, this has been hard on the mental health of many Canadians. It has divided families and it has discriminated against people's personal health choices, and we know that this is not good for our recovery. The minister spoke for 20 minutes and never once talked about having a plan to end these very punitive restrictions, as well as the divisive and discriminatory mandates. When will there be a plan?

160 words

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Feb/10/22 11:05:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague demonstrated a sense of leadership that the Conservative leader also showed earlier. Asking for the blockades to be taken down is the right thing to do now and was the right thing to do since they started. The second thing the member mentioned is mental health. About half of Canadians report that their mental health has deteriorated over the last months. He is right that it is a sign of the tension and fatigue that comes with moving through COVID-19. The third thing I would mention is that as we work together, we need to recognize that no politician is able to declare that COVID-19 will end at a particular point. That is not possible. Science will tell us that. Until science tells us that, we need to keep being responsible and protect ourselves from future waves and variants in the pandemic.

148 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Feb/10/22 11:06:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the minister's recent statements. Can you add some predictability to your measures? Look around you. Almost all of the provinces are starting to—

32 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 11:06:43 a.m.
Watch

I would like to remind the hon. member to address her questions and comments to the Chair.

17 words

Remarks addressed to the Chair

Ms. Louise Chabot

Feb/10/22 11:06:49 a.m.
Watch

Thank you for your reminder, Madam Speaker. That is basically what is being called for. Everyone must agree that vaccination is a means to an end and that the measures in place have helped. In fact, the vaccination rate here is pretty high. When will the federal government be able to relax certain measures, and how predictable will that be? What indicators is it using? I feel like I am hearing—

72 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 11:07:22 a.m.
Watch

I must give the minister time to answer. The hon. Minister of Health.

13 words

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Feb/10/22 11:07:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing is certain, and one is totally uncertain. The uncertainty is what COVID-19 will surprise us with next. COVID-19 has had a huge number of nasty surprises for us in the past 22 months, and there are undoubtedly more to come. What is certain, on the other hand, is that of all the tools we have, vaccination is the safest and surest way to prepare for future waves and the almost certain prospect of future variants.

81 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/10/22 11:08:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. Let me get one thing straight right out of the gate: We will support the Conservatives’ motion, but with certain reservations, which I would like to discuss today. To begin with, I would like to address the current political climate. This week, there were two events that summed up the current political climate. We saw the member from Louis-Hébert speak out. I would like to thank him, because I thought he had a measured, non-partisan tone. He made a lot of people feel better. We also heard from the member from Carleton. I heard him yesterday in the debate on Bill C-8, and he barely spoke about the bill. His speech sounded like some kind of rallying cry pitting freedom against the pandemic. In my opinion, when a public decision-maker draws murky comparisons between freedom and a pandemic, there is something wrong. I say this because it reminded me of U.S. politics. I do not know if my colleagues pay attention to that stuff, but there is one particularly despicable Republican, Ms. Taylor Greene, who made a problematic association between what is happening in the United States and the Nazi regime. Instead of saying “gestapo”, she said “gazpacho”. Perhaps we appreciate culinary delights a little more than she does. Perhaps we are a little more cultured; we know what it is. I mention this because it seems to me that Canadian politics are becoming more and more Americanized. That is what scares me. When I read the Conservative motion, I saw it as an attempt to unite the discontented. I can understand why people might be discontented. I have family members and people around me who are not happy about the current situation. Even if they are looking for someone to blame, they can see that the government is responsible for its actions, but nobody created the pandemic. I think it is irresponsible to unite the discontented who are proposing solutions to the crisis that are even worse than the current measures. Unfortunately, people's positions are very polarized right now, and I think that is the worst thing we can do during a crisis. I am a great admirer of Camus, and this reminds me of something he wrote, “Servitudes de la haine”, or slaves to hatred, which was published in Actuelles II. To put it in context, it is from the end of the Second World War. I will read the passage, and then I would like to unpack it. Camus wrote: ...the truth is something that must be constructed, like love, like intelligence. Nothing is given or promised, but anything is possible for those who take initiative and take risks. That is the wager one must make when one is being suffocated by lies, when one's back is up against the wall. The wager must be made with equanimity [that is worth emphasizing] and implacability, and doors will open. Camus was a great proponent of moderation. There is a concept in Greek philosophy called “hubris”. It is essentially about excess. It seems to me that there is a little too much excess in Canadian politics. People are using the pandemic to score political points. As I said, I found the comments from the member for Louis-Hébert interesting because he was trying to be reasonable and rational and point out that his party might need to make some changes. What I would like to see from the Conservative Party is reasonable and rational people who are willing to say that they cannot support all of the protesters' demands because the pandemic is still affecting our health care system. I would not be surprised if the protesters I saw flouting physical distancing rules this week put additional pressure on our health care system in the coming weeks. I think it is irresponsible to appear alongside the protesters and take photos with them, to use them for political purposes and commend them for what they are doing, while knowing full well that this is not the way out of the crisis. It demonstrates a certain level of political excess that is becoming increasingly common. Not to be unkind, but I could not help but notice some degree of excess in some of the statements made by the member for Carleton. I am talking about excess because the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues refers to something Dr. Theresa Tam has said. We have heard from her quite a bit throughout this crisis. During the first wave, she provided some guidance that I heard several of our Conservative colleagues question. Now they are using Dr. Tam's words to call for the various measures that have been put in place to be lifted. Over the past few weeks, we have once again seen plenty of examples of this ideological excess. Protesters demanded that all measures be lifted, but half of the restrictions do not even fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. They are provincial responsibilities. It is the provincial health departments that decide to impose lockdowns. In the House, the specific measures do not necessarily concern lockdowns or restaurant closures. The provinces deal with that. What is more, all of this is being done for political purposes. Unfortunately, I have repeatedly heard some colleagues from the Conservative Party talk about lifting all measures because that would please the protesters outside. I talked about the current climate. All of this makes me think of that ailment of democracy called populism. The definition of populism is to propose very simple solutions to complex problems. A pandemic is complex and is not something that can be resolved by honking horns, reopening restaurants or yelling about freedom. To overcome the pandemic, we have to rely on science. The worst thing a public decision-maker can do is try to exploit science and use it for partisan purposes. Science implies a form of truth and does not mix well with ideologies. In the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, I get the impression that they are attempting to use science for ideological purposes by referring to Dr. Tam. They did not listen to her when she said that unfortunately, we needed to impose certain restrictions on our individual freedoms because of the pandemic. Now, however, they are listening to her when she says the opposite. The worst thing a public decision-maker can do is use science for ideological purposes, which we are seeing increasingly today. I look forward to seeing my Conservative colleagues rely on science when it comes to climate change, which they have not done so far, unfortunately. I think using science for ideological purposes is one of the worst things a politician can do, because it fuels public cynicism. Populism feeds off that cynicism, rejects the elites and breeds skepticism of institutions. Populism is on the rise in Canada, and I do not think my Conservative colleagues are too upset about it. At the beginning of my speech, I said that the Bloc Québécois might support the Conservatives' motion, with some reservations. The main reservation is that our Conservative colleagues seem to be trying to use Dr. Tam for their own purposes. We will see where that ends. I look forward to hearing my colleagues' comments.

1257 words

All Topics

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 11:17:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be honest. I was a little touched by the member for Jonquière's comments about moderation, accountability, nuance and combatting extremism and populism. I completely agree with him. I think he chose the right words to express the idea that, because we going through this crisis together, it is important for us to stick together, listen to each other and respect one another, while we also listen to scientists and respect what they are saying. I am also a fan of Albert Camus, and I am not looking for a quote here, but I would like to ask my colleague what Albert Camus would have to say if he were here in the House today.

121 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/10/22 11:18:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was a fine way to turn it over to me, but I will decline. The minister will understand why. I am pleased that it is the Minister of Health who asked me this question, because what the pandemic has shown us is that our health care system was ill prepared. If we want to be honest and set ideology aside, the best thing to do is to reinvest in our health care system. I am reaching out to the Minister of Health. A 35% increase would be fantastic, and I believe that Camus would agree with me on that.

102 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Feb/10/22 11:18:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks, and I want to thank him and his colleagues for his support of our motion today. I also join him in condemning anything Gestapo, but as a former tomato farmer, I have to say gazpacho would be the way to go. Chatham-Kent—Leamington is the home of tomato production in Canada, a huge greenhouse sector with half a billion dollars of annual farm gate production a year. It is being interfered with dramatically by the blockade. I will join my colleagues' voices today in calling for both the end of the blockade and an end of the mandates. The mayor of Windsor, yesterday morning, called for federal leadership to resolve this. I would ask my colleague to comment on what he is looking for in the federal government's leadership to end the situation.

147 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/10/22 11:19:31 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In my opinion, there are two positions that should be avoided. The Conservatives roundly criticized the government for insulting the protesters. I agree with my colleague that we should perhaps avoid that, but we should also avoid flattering them. By using “freedom” as a rallying cry, my Conservative colleagues are trying to flatter certain protesters, to encourage them while doing nothing to resolve the crisis. I believe that what we should do is take a measured position. We should not insult the protesters, but we certainly should not flatter them either.

102 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Feb/10/22 11:20:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his words and the tone he used. I am not very familiar with the works of Camus, but I listen carefully to Dr. Theresa Tam's statements. I appreciated my colleague's comment about how the Conservatives sometimes criticize what Dr. Tam says, but then support her at other times. Dr. Tam stated that we should re-examine all mandatory measures and federal restrictions. However, today's motion does not propose a re-examination of restrictions, it comes to the conclusion that we should lift them immediately. Does my colleague believe that the motion truly reflects what Dr. Tam said, or did the Conservatives jump to conclusions about what she was proposing?

126 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 28