SoVote

Mar/24/22 1:07:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my constituents, as I have, that as a government, from day one we have been listening to and following the advice of health experts, realizing that the very best thing we can do for Canadians is work with Canadians in getting through this pandemic. That is one of the reasons that, ultimately, Canada has fared so well in ensuring we have the vaccine supply and the supports in place to be there for workers, seniors, people with a disability, students, just name it. We have been there in a very real and tangible way because we care about the people of Canada and we are not going to put politics ahead of that caring.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/24/22 1:08:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, given the rough week that the member for Winnipeg North has had, I can understand why he is so energetic and impassioned here today. We are calling for a plan and for more predictability with respect to health measures. This will help maintain social cohesion. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the idea of a flexible plan that would enable us to look forward and provide some predictability surrounding the measures.

77 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/24/22 1:09:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand that opposition members will often ask for plans. I was in opposition at one point too and asked for plans. That kind of implies that there is no plan, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is a plan. We have ministries with very competent civil servants who work every day to ensure that we are listening to what health experts and science are saying and what Canadians are saying. We are ultimately making decisions based on that. It is not that on April 1 we are saying we do not have to have the pretest. That was decided a little while ago in anticipation, because the science and the numbers were allowing us to make that adjustment. In essence, when members say there is no plan, I would counter it by saying that we do have a plan and we see that plan in action every day.

154 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/24/22 1:10:10 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. Nunavut's chief public health officer has stated that they will be cautious in lifting these measures. These changes in public health rules do not mean that COVID-19 is gone, but rather that we must live with COVID-19. Does the hon. member agree that measures to protect vulnerable communities remain a priority and increased investments on current commitments are necessary?

64 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/24/22 1:10:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very valid concern and it is something I tried to emphasize. There is a lot of fluidity with regard to the pandemic, and there are certain sectors of our communities where we do need to ensure that extra attention is given. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister and many of us have recognized that there are ways in which we can learn from the pandemic to enhance programs going forward. The best example that comes to my mind is the issue of long-term care. Let us understand it and look at ways we can improve it through, for example, national standards for long-term care.

115 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Mar/24/22 1:11:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the revisionist party of Canada, also known as the Conservative Party of Canada, and its motion today to confuse and conflate what we are dealing with and every sacrifice that Canadians have made throughout this pandemic, as a way for them to try to save their floundering party and the division within it. It is shocking to sit here and listen to the Conservatives today, although it should not be shocking after the last six years of being in this place with them. Let us talk about the pandemic and the mandates across the country, in particular the fact that I do not think there is a single Canadian who has not been impacted by the pandemic and who does not want to see the lifting of these mandates. Everybody, on all sides of the House, wants to see a return of normalcy, but what Canada and countries around the world have done and what responsible governments around the world have done has been to implement public measures to keep people safe. A recent Harvard study actually indicated that if it were not for vaccinations and strong public health measures, over 400,000 Canadians would have died during this pandemic. I sat here today and listened to Conservatives scream and say they wanted their freedom back. What about the freedom of those 400,000 families that would no longer have that family member sitting across from them, or that employer who would no longer have that employee, or that young person who might have lost their grandparent before they had the time to have more cherished memories? While the Conservatives say they want their freedom back, they mislead the House and they mislead Canadians with regard to the very real tragedies across the country. The actual number of Canadians who have sadly passed due to this pandemic has been over 37,000. It is a number that I find the Conservatives continue to gloss over. They talk all about the inconveniences. Trust me, it is an inconvenience. It has been difficult not to travel like we want to, to wear masks and to have limitations, but the alternative has been losing lives, losing family members to this disease and having worker shortages across the country due to infection rates. While the Conservatives scream and talk about freedom, they very much do not represent the reality of the over 37,000 Canadians who lost their ultimate freedom because they died due to this disease, and of the family members who have lost that opportunity to spend time with them. With that said, obviously, the need to lift restrictions is inevitable. We have seen provinces and territories do it across the country, but what the Conservatives like to gloss over is the fact that, throughout the pandemic, over the last two years, every province and territory has experienced different things at different times. They have had the ability to adjust and put in place measures based on the risk profiles at the time. Leave it to the Conservatives to be out of touch and say they know better than provinces and territories what is needed in their local jurisdictions. I come from Ontario, and we have had a very different experience than, for example, my friends and colleagues from Nova Scotia have. Does that mean that the Conservatives know best and they will just implement whatever they want, no matter the local dynamics at the time? It is no wonder that Canadians did not trust Conservatives in this place to deal with their health care needs. Let us talk about flip-flopping and changes in positions, because I have listened to the Conservatives. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton actually said in his speech, or in a reply to a question from me, that the Conservative position has never been to restrict Canadians' travel abilities. It was actually his former, former, former leader. I forget now how many they have had, as there have been so many. It was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who in April 2021 slammed our government for not restricting travel more. Also, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who I sat on committee with when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of health, demanded that we put more travel restrictions in place, but then a few months later, once the Conservatives had another leadership convention, they changed their position back. Let us talk about the ultimate hypocrisy coming from the Conservatives. Their former leader, the member for Durham, said in the last election campaign that anyone travelling with him or his family had to be fully vaccinated, yet for the rest of Canadians travelling on planes, buses or trains, that requirement was not there. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, but we know that when it comes to members of the Conservative Party, they will take measures to protect themselves, but then try to stoke up the flames of the party's base. Let us also talk about the fact that I have listened in this place to the members opposite say that they support science and that there is no science for these mandates. It is a little rich to hear members of a party still debating whether or not climate change is real say that Canadians should listen to them on their accreditations about science. Even without that, if the members opposite truly care about science and think that science is going to lead us out of this pandemic, which I certainly believe, then why is it that they still allow members, such as the member for Niagara West, to actually promote Ivermectin as a treatment? It is horse dewormer. I am sorry. The Conservatives are correcting me on the pronunciation. It is something that they have been researching and promoting. Conservatives suggested that instead of vaccinations, Canadians should use horse dewormer. This has been widely proven to be false information, but those are still the voices in the Conservative Party that they want Canadians to listen to. They say they are the arbiters of science. There was also the member for Provencher who had to apologize in this place because he made the claim that double vaccines were 13 times more likely to kill people than the delta variant. The member had to apologize. He is still a sitting member in this place on the Conservative benches. It is outrageous to think that Canadians should trust the Conservative Party of Canada with their health or with the decision of when mandates should be lifted. There is no question that all mandates will eventually be lifted, as they should be and as we have been doing constantly. As the pandemic has changed, so have our mandates because we have been following the science. What I think Canadians find truly offensive, and certainly I do after listening to the debate in this place, is the suggestion by the party of climate change deniers and horse-dewormer medication strategies that vaccines are not safe. It will not even disclose who is vaccinated or not, and its members continue to spread conspiracy theories on their social media and in this place. Those are not the people who Canadians have trust in to lift mandates and take care of their health. The pandemic has been incredibly difficult for everybody, but we must never forget the lives lost and the heroes throughout this pandemic, such as health care workers who are still overwhelmed in hospitals and still care for residents in long-term care homes. We want out of this pandemic, but the only way to do it is through science-based decisions, not the revisionist type of conspiracy theory policies that Conservatives have put forward. On this side of the House, we will continue to look out for Canadians, for their health and for the well-being of their families and the economy, and we will reject the politicized alt-right policies of the Conservatives.

1345 words

All Topics

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Mar/24/22 1:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is so unbelievably virtuous and knowledgeable about science. If we had not moved this motion today, we would not have even had the opportunity to debate the issue of vaccine mandates. On my side of the House, we think that scientists have the right answers. Could my colleague explain why the advice of 10 Canadian provinces that have scientists working on COVID-19 is not valid?

70 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/24/22 1:22:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I never suggested that the decisions of provinces and territories, and the scientific advice they are following is not correct. In fact, if the member was listening to my speech, he would have heard that I said that as provinces and territories have made decisions about their particular situations, we, as a federal government, should listen to what provinces and territories feel is best in their particular jurisdictions. However, that is not what the Conservative motion is. That member should know that the Conservative motion is saying that Ottawa knows best, and that it should tell provinces and territories how best to deal with this pandemic. We are saying we are going to continue to work with them and we are going to follow the evidence.

128 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 1:23:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite believe what I am hearing. All the scientists' ears have got to be ringing. As much as they want us to believe their decisions are informed by science, I think it is actually the opposite because this feels like we are in the magical land of unicorns. The House is debating an important issue, but the mood is all-or-nothing politics. The Conservatives are in camp nothing. They say we should cancel all the measures. The Liberals say they are keeping the status quo and will lift the measures someday, who knows when. Is there even a plan? The Liberals say they have one, but they are not telling us what it is. Is there any way they can tell Quebeckers something of substance about the public health measures and when and how the Liberal Party will give us some kind of plan so we know what to expect and have some predictability, all without remaining frozen in time?

165 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/24/22 1:24:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I actually agree a lot with her statement that it is this all-or nothing proposal that we seem to be debating. In fact, I disagree with that. For example, on April 1, there will be another federal restriction lifted when it comes to vaccinated travellers and testing requirements. As much as I wish we could provide a predictable plan, I think in the past two years of the pandemic, we have seen that there is nothing predictable about COVID except that it is serious and it is deadly. We need to make sure that we are agile to lift restrictions and ensure that Canadians can live as we always have, but that it is done with public health measures at the forefront and ensuring that we do not see increased spikes or increased deaths across this country, including in Quebec.

143 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 1:25:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the other thing that is fairly consistent is the fact that the Conservative Party has never taken this issue seriously from day one. As a matter of fact, at the beginning of the debate today, one of the members in the Conservative Party started to talk about how the government has been late on everything. Meanwhile, the Conservatives were late to put on masks, they were late to support Canadians in the supports that were being rolled out to them, and they were late to get vaccinated. We still do not know how many of them are vaccinated. They have been late in almost every single regard as it relates to COVID-19, yet they seem to hold a superior opinion as to how the government should be dealing with this now. Can the member expand on that?

144 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Mar/24/22 1:26:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for Kingston and the Islands who has been a champion for his community and for us here in the House. I think what is critical in this debate is the fact that the Conservatives, throughout this pandemic, have flip-flopped their way through the entire policy process. As I said, the example I gave in my speech of their former leader, the member for Durham, having a different perspective for him and his family than for the rest of Canadians says it all.

91 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Mar/24/22 1:27:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha. I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to our Conservative motion, which reads: That, given that Canada has one of the world's highest vaccination rates and every province across Canada has lifted or has a plan to lift vaccine mandates, the House call on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates in order to: (a) protect the jobs of federally regulated employees; (b) enable Canadians to travel unimpeded; (c) ensure Canada's tourism industry recovery; and (d) allow for the free flow of goods across the Canadian border. Of course, before my colleagues across the way try to shame and attack me for various and sundry, let me give a full disclosure for the record. I have had my vaccinations and I have also had COVID-19 twice, once at the beginning of the pandemic and once at Christmastime. I also know quite a bit about science. I have been a chemical engineer for nearly 40 years, so I would like to approach this from a scientific point of view. I will start by talking about the charter rights violations. This government has trapped almost three million Canadians in the country. They cannot take a plane, they cannot take a train and they cannot cross at the land borders. There was a point in time when this would have been considered a reasonable measure, according to the medical health experts and the World Health Organization, because we were in the time of trying to control the transmission of the disease. However, with omicron, we are now at a place where the World Health Organization has said that omicron is everywhere. Therefore, these types of restrictions are no longer working, and that is the reason countries all over the world are opening up. If we think about it, we have quite a high rate of vaccination in Canada, and those people can get and transmit COVID-19. I talked about having it myself. The Prime Minister had it. The member for Beauce had it. A lot of members in the House have had COVID-19, and we have all had our vaccines. Therefore, if we have almost 90% of those people going back and forth across the border, what is the additional risk of allowing another 10% of people who can get COVID-19 and transmit it from going back and forth across the border? There actually is no difference in risk from a science perspective. The government can no longer rely on section 1 of the charter, which allows it to temporarily infringe the charter rights of Canadians to freely come and go. That is one mandate that I would like to see dropped immediately. The second thing I will talk about is the people who were fired for not being vaccinated. First of all, I think this is just wrong on so many levels, but let us talk about it from a science perspective. Let us take a person who is a federal employee working from home who is vaccinated. What is the chance of that person spreading their germs to somebody in another building who is also working from home? The answer is, quite simply, there is zero risk. Now, if one is an unvaccinated federal worker who is working from home, what are the odds that this person is going to transfer their germs to somebody who is also working from home in another building? The answer from a science perspective is, again, there is zero risk, but those people were fired by this Liberal government. That is discriminatory. It is not based on science, and it is just one example of the many things this government has done to deliberately punish people who chose not to get vaccinated. I have had many people approach my office who wanted to get an exemption because they had a history of stroke or a history of heart and kidney problems or other comorbidities. Originally, many of them received exemptions from their doctors, but then the Royal College of Physicians overturned all of those exemptions and threatened the medical licences of doctors in this country if they wrote exemptions for anything other than an anaphylactic reaction to the first vaccine. That is the reason many people were not able to get their exemptions, but they still had valid reasons for not taking the vaccine. I would like to see the federal government hire back every person it fired who is working from home regardless of vaccination status. Now all provinces have started to lift their mandates. Let us take Ontario, for example. We have vaccinated and unvaccinated people whose children are going to school without masks, who are going to malls, who are eating in restaurants and who are all breathing the same air, so it is ridiculous to think that we have to protect them in some way in other places when they are already exposed. That is why, for all these mandates that have to do with the requirements on planes and trains and keeping unvaccinated people out of that line, the science is not there. These people are already exposed to omicron, just like the vaccinated. Everybody can get it and transmit it, so that needs to go. With respect to the things causing problems at the border, let us talk about ArriveCAN and the ability to input all of that stuff. Some people do not have cellphones. A lot of seniors are not computer literate. What is the increased risk of exposure to COVID‑19 if the federal government eliminated the need for ArriveCAN today? What is the difference? There is no scientific risk of increased COVID exposure related to an application. It can get rid of it today, and I suggest it does. At the same time, I am very concerned about some of the privacy invasions that happened during the COVID‑19 pandemic. We have seen privacy issues that have been put forward to the Privacy Commissioner. We have also seen the digital tracking of Canadians. I am concerned about those things as well. Some members may know that at the beginning, when we returned to this parliamentary session, I was quite passionately standing up for civil liberties. I had meetings with MPs who had their concerns. I happened to keep the paper with the list of things we wanted to see addressed, so I thought I would tick these off one at a time. There was the elimination of the PCR test for vaxxed and asymptomatic people. I am glad to see that was removed. There was no scientific evidence that it was needed, so that went away. I talked about ArriveCAN and the rules at the border. With respect to those things as well, there is no scientific merit to keep them in place. They are not going to prevent the spread of omicron and need to go. There were the medical privacy violations. I just spoke about that one. Then there was trapping Canadians in their own country. I just spoke about that one. Finally, there was the firing of the unvaxxed, and I just spoke about that one. I would like to share a little story. In my own riding of Sarnia—Lambton, Bluewater Health fired 18 medical workers and forced 300, under duress, to take the vaccine or lose their jobs. Four weeks after it did that, there was an outbreak of COVID‑19 among the vaccinated medical staff. What was accomplished? It was absolutely nothing but misery for the 18 families of the people who lost their jobs. Keep in mind that these are health care workers who, from the beginning of the pandemic, were dealing with COVID on the front lines with their personal protective equipment. Nobody was vaccinated then and they were considered heroes. Then, fast-forward, they were fired. Really, they were the safer ones. They were getting rapid-tested every day and wearing their PPE, whereas the vaccinated ones who ended up having the outbreak were not. Therefore, we can see that all of these mandates are intended to discriminate and punish, but they are not based on science and they do not accomplish anything. I do not think we need to talk about the provincial mandates. There are plenty enough at the federal level so we do not need to bring a lot of that in, but it is the same sort of thing. We need to look at the World Health Organization, which is recommending that we drop these mandates. We need to look at the other countries that have opened up. We need to look at the U.S., where 40 states have dropped all of their mandates. We need to look at the provinces, which have all dropped or are dropping their mandates. The current government needs to get rid of these things immediately. We all want to work together. The people who are vulnerable will want to continue to protect themselves, and I support that, but at this point in time we need to learn to get on with our lives. We need to stop punishing people. We need to stop violating their charter rights. Together, we will be better prepared for the next pandemic when it arrives.

1570 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 1:36:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 minutes, I listened intently to the comments given by this member. I will note she started off by telling us about her expertise as a chemical engineer, but then went on to talk about charter rights violations and civil liberties, both at the beginning and end of her speech. I know for a fact that she is a highly qualified chemical engineer. She was indeed educated at the best university in the country for engineering, but I did not know that she was a scholar when it came to civil liberties or charter rights. I wonder if she can inform the House, when she talks about charter rights violations, when they were tested in the courts, how the courts ruled on them and what the ultimate decisions were.

134 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Mar/24/22 1:37:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for recognizing that the best university is in his riding of Kingston. Actually, I was informed in previous debates by the Liberal members who are actually members of the bar on the Oakes principle, which is applied when looking at section 1 of the charter in trying to determine whether or not the threshold has been met for being able to infringe upon people's rights. It is intended to be temporary, and it has to be shown that there is a threat to Canada. That is my principle at this point in time. We cannot show that at this moment in time, with omicron being everywhere and being able to be transmitted by people who are vaccinated and who are not vaccinated, that anything is being accomplished to protect Canada by keeping the unvaccinated trapped in their own country.

147 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/24/22 1:38:25 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. According to Indigenous Services Canada, as of yesterday, March 23, the data recorded for COVID-19 for first nations on reserves was 93,154 confirmed cases of COVID-19, 2,384 active cases, 3,068 hospitalizations due to COVID-19, 90,084 recovered cases and 686 deaths due to COVID-19. With these kinds of statistics still in existence, does the member believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is over?

72 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Mar/24/22 1:39:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out a couple of things that are worth noting. First, there are a lot of numbers out there and the bar just kept getting changed from the beginning of the pandemic. At the beginning of the pandemic, the concern was to prevent deaths and to prevent our ICUs from being overcapacity. Once the the ICUs were not overcapacity, then it became tracking the number of cases and then it became 70% vaccination. Then that was not good enough and it needed to be 80% vaccination, and so on and so forth. Now, essentially, we see that the ICUs are not overcapacity in our country, and we know that every year, when we have flu season, 12,000 Canadians die from flu and upper respiratory illness. I could not minimize the seriousness of COVID-19, especially for those who are vulnerable and have comorbidities, but I think we need to stop looking at case counts. We do not measure case counts when we talk about the flu every year. We do need to look at what is happening with the ICU, and it is a static situation. We could see another pandemic. We could see another strain. We have learned from the past how to react quickly to those and as appropriately as need be at the time.

222 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 1:40:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since this morning, we have heard several Conservative MPs talk about the need for a plan. I would remind members that, a month ago, we voted in favour of their motion for a plan to be tabled. The problem is that there is no mention of a plan in the current motion. Why is the need for a plan being brought up in the speeches when it is not included in the motion? Would the Conservatives be open to amending the motion to explicitly set that out?

89 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Mar/24/22 1:41:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I think that we do indeed need to have a plan. The Liberal-NDP government does not have one at this time. I believe that we must get rid of the requirements that are currently in place, for example the ones at the border for people who lost their jobs. We must put an end to these requirements immediately and set out a plan for all the rest.

77 words

All Topics

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Mar/24/22 1:41:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, everything has an expiration date. Our country was hit with a pandemic that no one had experienced before. We implemented measures we thought were best, and Canadians really delivered on what was asked of them. An emergency plan needs to be three things: timely, targeted and temporary. We do not even have a plan, and it has been two years. Every province has lifted, or has a plan to lift, mandates. I can, in fact, go outside of this federal building right now and not show my vaccine passport or wear a mask, yet I have to in here. How is the science outside of this federal building different than a non-federal building? People can attend an NHL game with 20,000 unmasked and unvaccinated people, but we still have not fully opened our borders. Why? As shadow minister of tourism, I can tell members the travel industry is without a doubt one of the hardest-hit sectors. It is important to take this time to truly convey the magnitude of this industry and how hard it has been impacted by these travel restrictions. People have been shamed for wanting or needing to travel, and that is wrong. Many people will say that travel is privilege, but I challenge everyone to think about the millions of people who have a job, a paycheque and a purpose because of the travel industry. People have saved their life savings to go on a trip. I challenge everyone to think about family members who need to travel to see each other. Before this pandemic, Canadian tourism was a $105-billion industry. It has been slashed to less than half of that, and unless we take action today, it may not recover. It is time to drop the federal mandates and the confusing restrictions. Canada is lagging in the world of travel, and we need to restore travel confidence today. Canadians and international travellers are travel hesitant. The rules and unnecessary restrictions are huge barriers to this industry recovering. People will book a trip to visit family or to get away, only to cancel it shortly thereafter because the rules keep changing. We need to move forward. We need to learn to live with this virus, and we need to restore travel confidence. That is key in the recovery. Each week, I receive hundreds of heartbreaking stories from constituents who have not been reunited with family and friends. I have a friend who never got to say goodbye to their mother, who passed away alone. This is all connected to the travel industry. Whether one travels by plane, train or automobile, one needs to rely on the tourism sector when one travels. Maybe someone needs a dog kennel, a hotel, a restaurant, food, supplies, gifts or clothes. Maybe someone wants to visit the spa and get their hair or nails done before they leave or while they are at their destination. All of these businesses have been decimated, and it is our duty to help them recover. The Canadian tourism and travel sector cannot recover without the support of the government. The government took travel confidence away from Canadians, and it is its job to restore it. We need to restore travel confidence and fully open the border. The government needs to show the world Canada is safely open for business. It also needs to take the action to prove it, and not just say it. The tourism industry relies on plans that are months out, and our window gets smaller and smaller every day to help this sector recover and restore travel confidence. Travellers who are currently making summer, fall and winter 2023 plans will bypass Canada if we do not act today. Travel and tourism is both a foundation for our economy and our mental health. Those who work in the industry are suffering and those who travel are suffering. This is a huge industry that impacts all demographics. People need hope and relief. Tourism is the backbone of many local economies across our country, including in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. Rhonda Keenan of Peterborough and the Kawarthas Economic Development says that 87.5% of arts, entertainment and recreation businesses were closing their doors or cancelling. Many businesses in the tourism sector have shared heartbreaking stories with me about their struggles. Many have invested their life savings, remortgaged their homes or can no longer afford their homes. These businesses cannot endure another season of closure and uncertainty. I want to share some stats with you. The Canadian Federation of Outfitter Associations is a voice for resource-based Canadian tourism. The industry has an economic impact of over $5 billion annually and provides over 35,000 jobs. The industry can accommodate over 700,000 clients for fishing and hunting, many of whom come from outside of Canada. Clearly, this is a significant industry and it needs our help to recover. Ending federal mandates would help it recover. The Saskatchewan Commission of Professional Outfitters reported decimating revenue losses of up to 100%. One in five outfitters did not open its camps in 2021. Next, I want to share the experiences of Brian Edwards of Rocklands Entertainment Canada. Brian has been in the industry for decades. He, like so many others, has seen it destroyed. Brian wrote to me recently saying that I was 100% correct that tourism and entertainment are about as connected as one can get. He described how every year they booked hundreds of airline flights, hotel rooms, buses and meals. The bus groups they worked with all across Canada in some cases survived entirely on taking people to entertainment venues. He also said that, for the mental well-being of everyone, including, but not limited to, artists, producers, technicians, promoters, agents, managers and, last but not least, the audience, it needs to survive. He asked if I could believe that one of our most celebrated and successful Mirvish productions, Come From Away, had had to shut down and cease production. As we start to hear these stories, we are reminded just how big the travel and tourism industry is and how many lives it impacts. Stewart Grant from Stonetown Travel said that revenue is down over 90% and 50% of retail travel agencies had been lost in their constituency. ITAC, which is the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada, said that Canada's indigenous tourism sector has experienced an almost 70% decline in direct GDP and a 59.4% decline in employment. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada, TIAC, is still at 50% of where it was in 2019. Since the pandemic started, only 1% of all cases of COVID-19 in Canada have been related to travel, yet it is portrayed and perceived as an unsafe thing to do. The constantly changing restrictions also cause so much confusion. To put this into perspective, in 2021, which was supposed to be a year of recovery, the industry reached only 13% of the total number of international visitors compared to 2019. The year 2021 was worse than 2020 in terms of international inbound travellers. The tourism industry was the first hit. It was the hardest-hit. It will be the last to recover if we do not plan and act now to remove the unscientific mandates. It is time for the NDP-Liberal government to give hope and relief to the tourism sector and end the restrictions that continue to hold their businesses back. Why are we punishing the industry that brings us the things that we need the most right now: jobs, mental health, a thriving economy, happiness and hope? It is time to end the federal mandates.

1281 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 45