SoVote

Feb/10/22 1:05:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know there are many different ongoing discussions that take place between critics, shadow ministers, ministers, leaders, offices, house leadership teams and so forth. I would always encourage that. I was pleased with the member's idea of ending the blockades. I would think that the member would agree that many of those Conservatives who went out to promote the blockades should be returning to those same people in a public way on their social media to say that it is time to end the blockades. I look forward to seeing those tweets.

95 words

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 1:06:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the issue the member identified was with the Conservatives going one way and then the other: going back and forth. Obviously, in the last two weeks the Conservative Party has identified itself with the blockade, and now it is standing up and saying, “End the blockade.” It is not women and baby carriages. It is far more serious than that. Having encouraged the blockade, this expression of lawlessness, across the country, there is an element of hypocrisy in Conservatives now saying, “End the blockade.” The other issue is that this has unleashed a wave, and even the Conservative Party will not be able to get this genie back in the bottle. How would the hon. member respond to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition encouraging lawlessness from one end of the country to the other?

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/10/22 1:07:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in his overall assessment. That is one of the reasons I really believe it is one thing for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in the chamber today and say, “Okay, blockades are bad and it is time for people to go home.” I welcome that and thank her for those comments; however, I would like to see those Conservative reform members of Parliament who did the tweeting and all the social media posts, who went out to the protesters shaking hands, patting backs, posing for pictures and applauding the blockades, to now start reversing them. Maybe they could delete some of the tweets they put out. Maybe they could put, “Listen to what the new Leader of the Conservative Party is saying today,” on their social media. There is a lot they could do to put some action to the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

160 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Feb/10/22 1:08:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 2011, the member for Papineau said: Enough of a Prime Minister who will not listen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. We are about to enter into a third week of sustained and growing public outcry for change across this country. I think it is important we all recognize that one of the major reasons this is the case is because our Prime Minister immediately dismissed any opposition to his mandate as fringe, racist and misogynist. I hear the same coming from this member today. These people are our constituents. They are hard-working, honourable, decent, intelligent people. They are proudly Canadian, and they reflect the vaccinated and unvaccinated, all ethnic backgrounds and everyone in this country. Many have done what they were asked to do, and those same Canadians, over half of Canadians, are calling for a plan to end COVID restrictions. This member has honourable, brave Liberal colleagues who have challenged the Prime Minister's statements and actions as politically motivated. Canadians today, across this nation, are hoping and praying that they and more of their colleagues will support our motion to simply table a transparent science- and data-based plan. Will the member encourage his leader to support the motion today?

207 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/10/22 1:10:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member said the Prime Minister needs to listen. However, just last week, I was on a Zoom conference with the Prime Minister and teachers in the province of Manitoba. I have had many opportunities to be present on virtual meetings where the Prime Minister is listening. I would like to assure those who follow the debate that not only do we have a Prime Minister who listens to Canadians on a daily basis but on a weekly basis and beyond. There are caucus members such as me who constantly share our concerns and thoughts with the Prime Minister, as does the cabinet and even members opposite. This is a government that listens to the population. However, what we should really be talking about is the wonderful work that Canadians have done to get us to the point we are today. They are the ones who should be applauded. Those are the types of things we should be recognizing.

161 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/10/22 1:11:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member for Winnipeg North says that his government is listening to the public. Here in the House, we are in fact the representatives of the people. I think that it is perfectly legitimate, to get back to the request of the motion before us today, for Quebeckers and Canadians to know what to expect and to be provided with a plan to lift restrictions fully based on science and events, which are evolving very quickly. It seems to me that a plan is the least we can give them. Does my colleague agree that it is completely legitimate for Canadians and Quebeckers to want to have an idea of what the government has in mind going forward when it comes to the reopening that we are all waiting for?

137 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/10/22 1:12:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, I will read specifically from today's Winnipeg Free Press. This comes from Dr. Jazz Atwal. It says: “A handful of individuals who protest have no bearing on what public health recommends,” Atwal said at a COVID-19 media briefing. “It's as simple as that.” The Prime Minister, members of our caucus as a whole and I suspect members of the Bloc, NDP and Green parties, and maybe even some Conservatives, recognize that we need to listen to our health professionals. That is all a part of the plan: science, health care professionals, the economy and people. I listen to my constituents. Every day I am reading emails, as I know my colleagues do. We all have that responsibility. I can assure the member that members of the Liberal caucus take that seriously, and every day of the week we work to reflect the interests of our constituents.

156 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Feb/10/22 1:13:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I have thought long and hard about my comments today. More importantly I took the opportunity to think about the values of empathy, compassion and understanding, and I think those values are missing from this debate. I think those values are missing from this conversation. These are values that I think members on the other side have neatly tucked away into a corner, because it is politically convenient for them. I am not the first one to say this in the House, but we are a country divided. We are east against west, urban against rural, those with powerful unions to protect them and those who are independent and have no such voice, the vaccinated against the unvaccinated. I think we are families divided. I think we have friendships ended and co-workers who are stripped of that workplace bond. We have a government whose tired talking points and ideological drive to engage in wedge politics has paralyzed our nation, and we do not have to look further than out the front door of this place. I think our political discourse is devoid of any respect and any nuance. I think there is no nuance in this place or in this debate, and if we ignore the nuance, then we run the risk of ignoring the trauma Canadians have faced over the last two years. By every indicator and every single measure, things are actually worse than they were before this pandemic, before the lockdowns and before the mandates. Regarding mental health, there are kids in my riding whose parents are telling me they have not left their bedrooms and are not socializing. There is a growing addictions crisis. There are regions in this country where there are more deaths from opioids than from COVID. There is domestic abuse because of the circumstances of some. Depression, loneliness, economic hardship and class warfare are all worse, all driven by a lack of leadership, a lack of nuance and a lack of managing this pandemic in a way that accounts for changing science and the virus changing. There are those who have not been able to see their families, those who have been restricted in good times and those, like me, who have been restricted in their worst times of grieving, because of restrictions, lockdowns and mandates. If the government ignores nuance, it risks further polarizing and politicizing a debate they have already done that to. The government has othered three million Canadians, and more. It has forced many more who are vaccinated into a dead end of frustration of a population with one of the highest vaccination rates in the world; a dead end of frustration of a dependence on restrictions and mandates devoid of any real data or debate; and a dead end that has led tens of thousands into the streets of our downtowns and in front of our legislatures and this place because they do not feel heard, and the government continues. I have heard it today continue to ignore what is going on out there. Our ultimate goal is figuring out how we can best control COVID-19 in our communities and then learn to live with something that every scientist has agreed is here to stay. Provinces are dropping restrictions. Provincial health officers have said it is time to move on. Our chief public health officer here in Canada has said it is time to look at and revisit these restrictions. All of these people have given government the advice to manage the pandemic differently and to put forward a plan, but when it is politically inconvenient to do so, the government ignores it. We know that. We heard that from members on the other side of the House this week. I want to take a moment to speak to the specifics, because I do not think we have done that. I want to give members on the other side of the House the opportunity to explain themselves without disparaging Canadians and without othering them. I want them to not rely on the repetitive refrain of vaccination, which we have heard over and over again, to answer every real question coming from this side of the House. I want to give the government the opportunity to answer this because, in this case, the case that I am going to talk about, the constant refrain does not explain the restrictions on travel. I want to give the government the opportunity to remove the unnecessary, unscientific obstacles to international travel. I want it to do it today. I want it to do it right now, because that is what I hear about when I go home. The predeparture, on-arrival PCR test for fully vaccinated travellers makes no sense. It is not science. Canada's current COVID-19 travel restrictions are obsolete. They are out of step with the rest of the developed world, like the lack of a plan we have seen. In fact, they are entirely out of step with the G7, our allies. These are countries that we trust in military engagement and in law and order. These are countries we share values with but apparently not science. Other countries have acknowledged this nuance. They have put forward a plan. They are in a different phase of pandemic management and that is what we are talking about. They have articulated a plan for their citizens to give all of those who are frustrated, who have lost hope, who are in dire circumstances, a plan to get out of this. We have not heard that from the government. We know that travel is no more risky than other activities and there is no scientific reason to single it out. I am tired of hearing the same talking points about vaccinations because I am asking very specific questions in this debate. Canadians are subject to a PCR test upon arrival. They are fully vaccinated. They are tested on the other end. We know it is wasteful. We know that it is ineffective, and we know that it is not keeping us safe, yet we have a government that has dug in and engaged in this performative COVID theatre to do something in the absence of nothing for the sake of prolonging a pandemic for political purposes. That is what we are seeing. We know there is a positivity rate of less than 1.5% for those who have tested. We know there is a forced quarantine leaving people at home, leaving them to make plans for their kids because they cannot return to school, and leaving them out of work. We know we have labour shortages all across this country and this is the kind of policy that needs to move with the science. We know that this is not science. These restrictions have singled out our travel and tourism sector, the hardest hit. It is just one of the many examples that Canadians have questions about, and the government has no answers. Like many others, I got vaccinated so I am tired of hearing that refrain. I believe that it was in my best interests. I believe it was in the best interests of my family. I believe it was in the best interests of my community, and I have encouraged others to do it. I did it because it was my choice, but I will not ignore the frustration of so many who are protesting in the streets. I will not stop demanding a plan to end these restrictions and these mandates that have torn Canadians apart because the government found it politically convenient to do so. I will not ignore the significant negative health effects of having people unemployed, underemployed and living in poverty as a result of a partially functioning economy for the benefit of a political cheap shot from the government. The process of gradually reopening can be done in a safe manner and the time to do it is right now. We have heard that all across the country and we have heard that beyond our borders. If members of the House want to engage in a conversation about the values I talked about at the beginning of this speech, the values that I think we have tucked away into a closet in order to politically divide Canadians and pit them against each other, to change their tone and to engage in a nuanced conversation, that will have support from this side. A plan will have support from this side and it will have support from the member of Parliament for Thornhill as well.

1456 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/10/22 1:23:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Thornhill's desire to seek common ground to have conversations. I think that is important. However, I did take exception to her comment about wedge politics and her suggestion that this side is trying to score cheap political points. We know that, a week ago, it was leaked by an obviously concerned Conservative staffer that the Leader of the Opposition had actually encouraged her side of the House not to ask the protesters to leave and to make this the Prime Minister's problem. As reported by Politico, the Leader of the Opposition had conversations with truckers and said, “Don't stop, it's working.” For them to suddenly come out here and try to be the saviours of both the “freedom convoy” and the residents of Ottawa seems very hypocritical, given the context in which the Leader of the Opposition has been participating in the dialogue over the last week and a half. I am curious if the member can explain to me how she thinks she can support both sides of this, given the comments of the Leader of the Opposition.

194 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Feb/10/22 1:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did say one thing. I think this is the Prime Minister's problem, and it is a problem of a lack of a leadership from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can talk to anyone he wants. He can call a press conference. He can pick up the phone. He can dial down the rhetoric. This is wedge politics, and it is being played by the members opposite. We have heard it from members on the other side, those within their own caucus. They are not only hearing it from this side of the House, and they are not only hearing it from other opposition parties. They are also hearing it now from inside their own caucus. I would encourage members on the other side of the House who feel the same way to say so, as today is Thursday, and we can use a third.

151 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/10/22 1:25:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her passionate speech. She is very eloquent. Bravo. However, I do have some nagging doubts about my Conservative colleagues' true intentions. On the one hand, they are proposing, indeed, demanding that the government present a plan to remove public health measures. On the other hand, they oppose Bill C‑10, whose purpose is to provide rapid tests to Quebec and the provinces, which is what will enable us to lift those restrictions. I am trying to understand the connection between providing the tools to help us get out of this faster and demanding that restrictions be lifted.

105 words

All Topics

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Feb/10/22 1:27:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which direction my hon. colleague is going in his speech. We talked about the ineffective, costly travel measures when it comes to testing, and I will stand by those comments because I do not think they make a lot of sense. We are asking the government, through this motion, for a plan to get us out of this pandemic. We are asking them to stop the restrictions, stop the mandates and stop dividing Canadians based on their wedge politics and their rhetoric. I think that a plan is a good first step.

98 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/10/22 1:27:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention was very interesting. One of the concerns that I have, though, is that we know the protective measures put in place across the country have saved lives. It is always difficult to know how many lives have saved because, of course, prevention is prevention. We do know that those measures that have been in place have protected Canadians and saved Canadians' lives. No health expert I have heard from is saying we should be lifting all of these protections. We have heard that we can examine them. We can look at which ones are appropriate and which ones we could ease, but no one is asking for all protections to be stopped and lifted, except the Conservative Party. I am just wondering why Conservatives are asking for that when they are not the health experts. They are not the scientists. They are not the doctors. It does not seem very safe or reasonable, and it seems like it will cost lives.

167 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Feb/10/22 1:27:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have seen provinces across the country lift restrictions. We have seen public health experts and those in the provinces, and Dr. Tam in Canada, say that it is time to move on, that it is time to have a reopening and drop these restrictions, or at least evaluate them. What we are asking for is a plan for the government to move forward and have us live with COVID, just like every health expert has said we should.

81 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Feb/10/22 1:28:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to discuss this important motion. It comes as we approach the start of the third year of dealing with COVID-19. We have heard a lot of discussion today about why it is important that the government table a plan for us to exit the COVID-19 restrictions and end the mandates. We all know what Canadians have had to sacrifice over the last two years. Most importantly, we know that Canadians have lost loved ones to COVID-19. Canadians have sacrificed a great deal, missing out on time that they will never get back. Some of them did not get a chance to say goodbye to the loved ones they lost, not because they were dying of COVID, but because of COVID restrictions. Early in the pandemic, governments rightly used all the tools that were available, to restrict movement and implement masking everywhere. Governments around the world got to work on developing vaccines. Now we know an awful lot about COVID. We learn more every day. Vaccines have been developed. I made the choice to get vaccinated, and I have encouraged people in my community to do the same. Many have been concerned about the vaccine and had questions about it. If my saying that I am vaccinated is not sufficient encouragement for them, I accept that and encourage them to talk to medical professionals. The Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit has had, and continues to have, one of the highest vaccination rates in the province and in the country. One of the really interesting initiatives was one for folks who had questions during a shortage of doctors and nurses and when our health care system stretched to the limit. My community made doctors available to stand in parking lots outside of vaccination clinics, not to vaccinate people, but just to answer their questions and talk to them. That was it. They were there to have conversations. Did all of those folks convert to people who ended up getting the vaccine? I am sure they did not, but having conversations is so important. Over the last number of weeks, we have seen the frustration that Canadians are feeling grow. Over the last several months, Conservatives and I have have been saying that nobody should lose their job because they have not been vaccinated. We need to use the other tools that are available. People wonder why, if they got vaccinated, why will other people not. There could be a number of reasons, but let us play this all the way through and have the conversation with them. Let us look at what it will be like for those individuals if they lose their livelihoods because of a vaccine mandate. What is the broader societal implications of people being put out of work because of that choice? We have other tools available. None of them are perfect, but neither is the vaccine. It is not a cure, but it is one of the very important tools that we have. We are now at a point where experts, trusted figures, are saying that we need a plan to exit. I want to reference a few of them. I do not think three years ago the majority of Canadians could have named the chief public health officer for the Public Health Agency of Canada, but now we know it is Dr. Tam. Just two weeks ago, Dr. Tam said, “We need to be able to address the ongoing presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a more sustainable way.” She went on to say that all COVID measures must be re-evaluated and stated, “I think the whole concept is, we do need to get back to some normalcy.” In Ontario, Dr. Kieran Moore, who is the top doctor responsible for the province, said, “we have let our lives be controlled for the last two years in a significant amount of fear and now we are going to have to change some of that thinking.” He went on to say, “I think we have to start to understand we have to learn to live with this virus.” Those are two very important points. What are we asking the government for today? We are asking for a plan to end the mandates. I am positive Drs. Tam and Moore offered those comments knowing the situation on the ground, and knowing the examples of other countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Greece, the Czech Republic, many states in the U.S.A., the U.K, France, Portugal and Switzerland, dropping those mandates. The evidence those doctors used to make their decisions is some of the same evidence used by Drs. Tam and Moore. That is what we are looking for. We know the World Health Organization has said that countries should not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travel as the only pathway or condition permitting international travel. We have the World Health Organization saying that. We need to take a look at these. What is the plan? What benchmarks will the government use to exit us from these mandates and restrictions? They were absolutely important tools, particularly in March of 2020. We are a long way from then. We know so much more. The conversations we need to have include talking with people we do not agree with. It is so important. We certainly should not be calling them names. People who disagree with us, who are concerned and who have questions are not unacceptable. They are not deplorable. It does not make them misogynistic or racist. They are our neighbours, community members and people's family members. This compassion is part of the fabric of our country. We cannot forget it, and we cannot lose it. It is part of our off-ramp out of this thing. There has been so much damage done to our country with the impacts of all the restrictions. We are going to be feeling that for many years, particularly with our children. Let us not make it worse by not talking to each other. Part of that communication and talking comes from the government presenting a plan to Canadians to end those mandates. That is what we are talking about today. It is incredibly important everyone recognizes the role they have to play in doing that. We have a job in this place to talk to people. We have our role as the official opposition to challenge the government. It has the tools and the resources, and it is the authority to tell Canadians what it is going to take for us to exit from these restrictions. We are going to be that voice for Canadians. We are going to be that voice, and we are calling on the government to end those mandates. In fact, we asked for a plan a year ago. The situation certainly has changed a lot in that year, but this is a new opportunity, a fresh opportunity, for the government and the minister to provide that information to Canadians. Instead of pointing fingers about who was the strongest advocate for these public health measures, let us just recognize we can always do better. The government has had time to produce this information to let Canadians know when it is going to end the federal mandates and what needs to be triggered for that to happen. Let us do that. Let us move forward together. Let us have those important conversations. Let us talk to our friends and neighbours and make sure we come out of this stronger. We have heard all along that we are in this together. Let us make sure we all get out of this together.

1301 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 1:38:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I see a lot of very smart people on the other side, but my daughter asked me the other day, “What is this trucker convoy? What is this protest about?”, so I explained it to her. She is 12 years old. She is studying the divisions of power within this government in this country. I said, “The truckers cannot go across to the U.S. without being vaccinated.” She said, “Well, isn't the American government's rule?” I said, “Absolutely.” She said, “Shouldn't they be protesting in front of the U.S. consulate or the U.S. embassy?” I said they are upset about putting masks on in grocery stores and going to other places. She said, “Isn't that provincial?” I said, “Absolutely.” She said, “What about travel?” I said, “Travel is the one that, yes, is federal.” In fact, the member opposite just said that they were asking for these restrictions to be ended over a year ago, but the member for Durham, when it was flights from India or Pakistan, which have 1% or 2% of COVID cases coming, said to shut them down and then said to shut them all down. I want to hear what their stand was at that time.

228 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett

Feb/10/22 1:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the question, we are going to assume that the hon. member misspoke and that he was not misleading the House. As we know, what we asked for a year ago, and what I articulated that we asked for a year ago, was a plan from the government. Instead, what we get from it is finger pointing. If we want to point fingers, we will point fingers at the Liberals for their absolute failure. They are doing nothing but moving goalposts and dividing Canadians. They are calling people racists and misogynists. They are saying people are un-Canadian. They are saying they are deplorable because they have opinions different from those of the Liberals. I want to remind the hon. member about my example about having those important conversations and encouraging people to get vaccinated. That is the example we demonstrated in my community. That is the spirit in which I offered those comments. If the hon. member wants to play silly games, he should talk to those of his hon. colleagues who had the courage to stand up to the government's failed policies of division.

191 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/10/22 1:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comment just now put a bit of a damper on what I was about to say. I was going to congratulate my Conservative friends on the surprisingly nuanced tone of the discussions we have been having since this morning, but partisanship once again reared its ugly head during that last remark. That is kind of a shame. I want to comment on statements by the opposition leader and some of our other Conservative friends this morning about how it is time to follow the science. At what point in the last two years did we not follow the science? Vaccines? That is science. Social distancing? Science. Masks? Also science. Border controls? That is science too. Canada has very high vaccination rates, almost 90%, but most countries around the world do not have that. We talked about that earlier. A friend was telling me about Uganda, where just 1% of the population is vaccinated. The government's border measures make sense. I would like to know at what point in the last two years we did not follow the science.

184 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Feb/10/22 1:41:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question from the hon. member. What we are looking for from the government are the benchmarks it is going to use to exit us from the COVID restrictions that the federal government has put in place. That is what we asked for a year ago. What are our targets? What are the metrics the Liberals are using to end the travel restrictions and to end all the federal mandates they have put in place? “Let us just wait and see” is not a science-based approach. Identifying the efficacy of vaccines and encouraging people to take a look and talk to experts, as I mentioned, is following the science. We have not seen that from them up until this point. I encourage them to talk to Dr. Tam and Dr. Moore to find out what metrics they should apply to end the federal mandates.

152 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/10/22 1:42:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to check something. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes talks about the quote from Dr. Tam in which she says that she thinks we should be re-evaluating these protections. However, re-evaluation is not the same thing as lifting. In the summer in Alberta, Jason Kenney was the very first premier to lift all the restrictions, and we saw the consequences. We saw thousands of Albertans protest against the lifting. They were afraid for their children, people under five who could not be vaccinated and people who were more prone to COVID. How does the member come to terms with the fact that lifting all of the restrictions is maybe not what many, many Canadians would like?

128 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 28