SoVote

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

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/10/22 11:21:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand what my colleague means. I have some concerns as well. The decision to lift the mandatory measures must be based on the circumstances. If there is a new wave or problems that we did not foresee, unfortunately, we will have to leave the measures in place to limit the spread of the virus. My Conservative colleagues could have been a bit clearer in their motion by saying that we would take circumstances into consideration. That could be worth adding, particularly since my colleague raised the same concern.

91 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/10/22 11:22:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a very important and interesting motion. However, this debate should not even be necessary. It should not be necessary to debate today's topic because it should have been part of a plan from the beginning. Unfortunately, Canada did not have a plan for dealing with the pandemic, despite the fact that epidemiologists had been telling us for 20 years that a pandemic was coming. That is why we are debating a motion asking the government to table a reopening plan. I will talk briefly about the current situation, and I will try to answer two questions: Why is it important to have a plan, and what should be in that plan? Earlier this week, I was saying that it is important to know where we are so that we can know where we want to go. The current situation is not great. No one is going to be surprised by what I am going to say in the next few minutes. People are discouraged. They do not know which way to turn, who to believe, what to do or why certain things were or were not done. Some 35,000 families in Canada have lost one or more loved ones. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs, sometimes more than once, particularly in the hotel, restaurant, transportation, tourism, and arts industries, all of which have been hit especially hard. It is understandable that people would feel discouraged about the current situation and would rather not feel discouraged about the future. Discouragement is totally understandable. The elastic is stretched to the breaking point. All the elastics, actually. Let us start with the elastic that represents people's resilience. Throughout the pandemic, Quebeckers and Canadians have been very resilient and very understanding, as we can see from vaccination rates. People believed things would go back to normal once they were vaccinated. That is the message that went out from coast to coast to coast, as English-speaking members are fond of saying. Despite laudable vaccination rates, the situation has not gone back to normal, and we can see why people would be upset about that. Nobody can make heads or tails of all the measures. Everything is so contradictory, and it is so hard to understand everything on the news from one day to the next. The authorities say one thing one day, and the opposite the next, it seems. How are people supposed to figure it all out? There is also the condition of the economy, which is not much better. People have had to make temporary or permanent career changes. Entire sectors of the economy are still in tatters. I referred to them earlier: transportation, arts, culture, tourism, hospitality and restaurants. These days, people tend to choose jobs they enjoy. When someone loses their job, it feels like something dies inside, and people have been dying inside for the past two years. It is not easy, and their anger, sorrow and distress are understandable. Lastly, let us take a look at health. The current situation is complex, and the reasons behind some decisions being made right now revolve around the ability of Canada’s health care systems to withstand the additional burden of the pandemic. Even if Canadians are vaccinated, the health systems are not doing well. Workers are exhausted, if not sick. The health care systems need predictable and recurring investments. The party in power keeps telling us that it has injected billions of dollars into the health care systems of Quebec and the provinces since the beginning of the pandemic. That is true, we have never denied it. However, it is the constitutional role of the federal government, in times of crisis, to increase its support to Quebec and the provinces. The crux of the problem is that, for the past 30 years, the federal government has made cuts to health care funding, while costs have increased year after year because of inflation and the ageing population. That has made health systems very fragile. However, let it not be said that the federal government has not held up its end of the bargain; it is far better to stigmatize people and say that health care systems are vulnerable and failing because people are not vaccinated. I am being sarcastic, of course. Although I do encourage people to get vaccinated, it is a personal choice. It is certainly not by stigmatizing people that our health care problems will be solved; the systems are fragile because the federal government has been underfunding them for 30 years. In short, taking stock of the situation involves seeing with clarity and understanding what state our society as a whole is in, as well as admitting our mistakes. In the past, I was told to never admit my mistakes, because that was a sign of weakness. No. It is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of clarity. It means that we are prepared to work to improve a situation caused, in whole or in part, by our mistakes. That is what we must do, and that is what must be in a plan to lift restrictions. When it comes to health transfers, mistakes were made not only by the party currently in power, but also by all parties that have been in power for the past 30 years. It is by clearly seeing our mistakes that we will be able to fix the situation. Now, why make a plan? It all comes down to one word: predictability. We all need predictability. It is nice to look ahead, past the tip of our noses, even if some have longer ones than others. It lets us start planning for the future again, because it clearly outlines the steps needed to get through an unwanted and undesirable situation. It is so simple and makes so much sense, that it is surprising we have to ask for a plan and explain why it is needed. It is just common sense. Is the motion calling for a full lifting of restrictions on February 28? No, because fully lifting all restrictions and mandates with no projections, no planning, is not a plan, it is a recipe for disaster. We need a plan with clearly defined steps. This leads me to talk about what a plan should contain, and that is a lot of things. First, it should take stock of the current situation, including what works and what mistakes need to be corrected. Second, it should set identifiable and quantifiable goals and ask questions about the present and the future that need to be answered. Then, it must include milestones and concrete, verifiable measures for achieving those milestones, and there must be identifiable and quantifiable conditions for moving from one milestone to the next. Individuals responsible for carrying out and validating these actions must be appointed. In addition, this plan requires some form of responsibility and accountability to the public, as well as effective communication, evaluation and validation tools. Lastly, it must address possible obstacles and provide solutions for dealing with them. In this particular case, we need to assess the measures currently in place, their rationale and effectiveness, and then determine when they should end. We also need to think about the conditions for ending the pandemic, which involves having Canada play an international role, not only as a supplier of goods and services, but also of education and intelligence. This role must be included in the plan to lift restrictions. In conclusion, having a plan to lift restrictions will help determine what needs to be done for us to get back to some normalcy and what steps are needed in order to get there. Some steps will happen quickly and others will happen less quickly, but they need to happen. It is important. We are all fed up.

1317 words

All Topics

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Feb/10/22 11:31:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc supports this motion, and I can understand the opposition and the public wanting some kind of plan and timetable. When exactly are we going to open the borders and no longer have to do tests? When can we get on a plane without having to wear a mask? However, is the problem not uncertainty? What is going to happen with respect to variants in one month or two months? There will be other variants, but how virulent will they be and how contagious? How new will they be? In one month how full will our ICUs be? In two months how full will they be? We cannot say. Does it not make sense to dial up or down the public health restrictions according to the risk at the time, not according to some preconceived timeline?

139 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Feb/10/22 11:32:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly why I did not talk about a timeline in my speech, but instead about conditions to be met and steps to be taken. We are indeed living in a period of uncertainty, and it is difficult to force a timeline on uncertainty. However, having identifiable and quantifiable objectives and conditions lets us see what we are accomplishing and what we are able to do together.

70 words

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Feb/10/22 11:33:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, countries around the world with lower vaccination rates than those in Canada are easing their COVID-19 restrictions. The trend continues in North America, where several American states are about to lessen their restrictions. Of course, we now know that several provinces are doing the same. The World Health Organization recently stated that some countries can carefully consider relaxing the rules if they have high immunization rates. Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, opined that all existing health measures need to be “re-evaluated” so that we can “get back to some normalcy”. Canadians have done their part. The good citizens of my riding of Brantford—Brant have done their part. They are frustrated. They are angry. For the last two years, they have had their lives impacted by job loss, economic uncertainty, isolation and depression. Now it is time for the government to do its part. It is time for the Prime Minister to be a Prime Minister—

170 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/10/22 11:34:08 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, for a response to the question.

13 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Feb/10/22 11:34:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the points raised by my colleague. First, vaccination is important. Second, we need a phased reopening plan, as suggested by the WHO and Dr. Theresa Tam. However, we need to avoid the trap of comparing ourselves to other countries, because we must first answer this question: Have these countries’ health systems been underfunded for the past 30 years? If the answer is no, then Canada cannot compare itself to those countries.

79 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Feb/10/22 11:34:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion today about who is covering the burden of this pandemic, and I cannot help but remind people about the thousands of health care workers right here in Hamilton Centre and hospitals across the country. Decades of health care underfunding and neglect under successive federal governments have left Canada without the surge capacity necessary to meet the current crisis. I reference what is happening right now in Denmark and Sweden, which have lifted their restrictions. Does the hon. member agree that the federal government should commit to providing the provinces and territories with significant new, long-term funding to Canada health transfers to expand Canada's health care system capacity?

118 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Feb/10/22 11:35:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. That is what we have been saying for a very long time, and we will keep saying it until this happens. Long-term recurring funding is needed. We are asking for 35% when the agreements call for 50%; that is a reasonable compromise.

49 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 28