44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 24, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see all my hon. colleagues here in the House and to be speaking to today's opposition motion.
Before I begin my formal remarks, I want to say a few things.
First off, with respect to the residents of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the residents of the York region, where I live, we have achieved about 85% coverage for two doses of vaccination, which I think is incredible. I thank all of the residents who have done the right thing, or what I call the collective responsibility, and gotten vaccinated and who are doing that continually.
When the pandemic started, we asked much from Canadians. We asked them to stay home and we asked businesses to shut down. During that time, our government had the backs of Canadians, whether through the CERB, the CEWS or the number of other programs we put in place. We have done things prudently. We asked Canadians to do these things because we wanted to protect their health and safety first and foremost.
Every government knows that. If we read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and a number of those books, we see the government's job, fundamentally, is to protect the health and safety of its citizens. That is what we have done as the federal government in all of our measures. We asked Canadians to wear a mask and socially distance. We ensured that we had capacity in our health care system. We helped out the provinces by sending the army into long-term care facilities. Also, we put in place restrictions, including mandates, for the health and safety of Canadians.
Obviously we have been evaluating the data, as it comes in, on how we are doing against COVID. Thankfully, we can see a light and we continue to see more light as we go along. We have seen changes to the restrictions that are in place, including the removal on April 1 of the requirement to do antigen or PCR testing when returning to our beautiful country after taking a vacation or going somewhere for business. We continue to see progress, and that is very important.
As a government, it is important to highlight prudence and responsibility, because we must have responsible leadership. When we talk about governing a country or province or being a mayor, we must demonstrate responsible leadership. I would say it is irresponsible leadership on the part of the official opposition for it to say we can just magically turn a switch and COVID‑19 will vanish. That cannot happen. Rather, we must follow the advice of medical practitioners.
Today, I am pleased to speak about the federal government's ongoing commitment to the well-being of Canadians and our economic recovery as we collectively transition from stringent lockdowns and restrictions to a stage where each of us is assuming more personal responsibility. Ensuring that all Canadians have what they need to be safe during this critical time is a responsibility that our government takes very seriously. We are committed to continuing to work hand in hand with the provinces and territories on these efforts and have done so since the beginning.
Unfortunately, COVID‑19 continues to have a significant impact on the lives of Canadians. Despite Canada's high vaccination rate, COVID‑19 continues to challenge our health, social and economy well-being. We need to ensure that Canadians have the tools they need to keep themselves and their loved ones safe as we enter this new phase.
Over the past few weeks, many jurisdictions have begun to ease some or all public health measures that were put in place to diminish the spread of COVID‑19, including limited occupancy in bars, restaurants and gyms, the use of vaccine passports and the use of masks indoors. In this phase, it is important that individual residents are equipped with information and the tools that will empower them to manage their own risk, including making decisions surrounding their own care and health.
This shift has heightened the urgency for the government to continue to procure and distribute COVID‑19 rapid tests. Equitable access to tests across and within jurisdictions is just as critical as procuring and distributing the tests themselves. Canadians will be relying on these tests to inform their own decision-making, whether it is to assess if they are able to visit a loved one in a long-term care facility or send their children to school.
Canada has been a leader in vaccine uptake, with over 80% of the entire population having received two doses of a COVID‑19 vaccine. As members know, the primary objective of the vaccine is to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, and it has been suggested that COVID‑19 vaccines have been very effective in this regard. They have worked. Thanks to scientists and health practitioners, vaccines are doing their job and continue to do their job. Recently, a number of provinces and territories have moved to the general public distribution of tests and are leveraging the retail sector to make COVID‑19 rapid tests available free of charge.
To support provinces and territories, Health Canada sought and received authority through Bill C-10 to distribute tests to provinces and territories, organizations, and individuals. With this authority, Health Canada is distributing directly to entities that have experience receiving medical equipment, such as pharmacies and the Canadian Red Cross, as well as to provinces and territories.
The omicron variant changed the landscape of the virus for countries around the world. The rapid spread of the virus among vaccinated individuals, even today, led many countries to move to refocus lab-based PCR testing and scale up COVID-19 rapid tests as a key testing method. As a result of the global resurgence of COVID-19 and the increased adoption of rapid tests, an already scarce resource became even more limited in supply, leading to a very competitive market. I would like to commend the Minister of Public Services and Procurement on her job in procuring rapid tests for this country and the ability to get that done.
Fortunately, Canada was an early adopter of COVID-19 rapid tests and had contracting vehicles already in place to quickly procure additional tests from last fall into this winter. Furthermore, to assist with transporting inventory from Asia, the government has secured international logistics support that suppliers can access in the event that they cannot secure their own airlifts.
In addition, Health Canada has prioritized applications that seek regulatory approval of COVID-19 rapid tests. Just last week, another point-of-care rapid antigen test was approved, bringing the total number of approved COVID-19 rapid tests to 29, plus 11 self-tests.
Given the globally competitive market, the government is putting in place additional contracts to secure a critical supply of tests for the coming months. The reality is that not every Canadian finds help readily available or easy to access. Keeping these realities in mind, our government is taking important steps to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 rapid tests.
As provinces and territories, as well as the federal government, started to roll out workplace screening in spring 2021, the government partnered with the Canadian Red Cross to support the non-profit sector. Through this partnership, non-profit organizations were provided with guidance materials, support and COVID-19 rapid tests free of charge directly from the Canadian Red Cross.
Given the success of this initiative and the standing that the Canadian Red Cross has in communities, this partnership has recently expanded to support broader distribution of tests, with a focus on individuals who have been hesitant to access services and supports. Working with food banks, YMCAs and YWCAs, and Boys and Girls Clubs, the government, through the partnership with the Canadian Red Cross, is taking steps to ensure equitable access of COVID-19 rapid tests.
The ongoing commitment to ensure access to COVID-19 rapid tests is an important enabler for the economy. Vaccines, along with rapid tests, are allowing the economy to function to its fullest extent. Ready access will allow Canadian businesses to continue with their voluntary workplace screening, thus diminishing the possibility of outbreaks. In addition, ongoing general population testing will provide a level of comfort to those travelling both internationally and domestically that they are not putting close contacts at risk during or after their travel.
As I said, on April 1 we will lift the antigen or PCR test requirements for Canadians returning to this country. I know many Canadians have asked for this, and over the last few months I have said to my constituents and many other friends that we would do this when it was prudent and safe to do so. We have done so. We have followed the signs. I have great faith and confidence in the Minister of Health, a great colleague and a dear friend. I know full well he is following the science and advice of medical professionals here in Canada who are doing a great job, day in and day out, and who have been asked and tasked to do a lot over the last two years.
This will further enable Canadians to travel unimpeded and will support the recovery of the Canadian travel and tourism sectors. As the members of this House are aware, Canadians' health and safety is this government’s main priority during this difficult and unprecedented time. As we have stated throughout the pandemic, this government will be there for every Canadian. The first priority of government should be protecting the health and safety of its citizens, and that has been our primary job over the last two years.
It goes without saying that the months ahead of us will continue to be full of challenges as we transition from having numerous public health measures in place to supporting tools to empower Canadians to make risk-informed choices and decisions on how to manage the risks of COVID-19.
I look forward to questions and comments. I would like to extend well wishes to the Speaker of the House, who is recovering from his operation.
1706 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 3:48:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise before the House, so I am going to split my time today with the member for Niagara Falls.
The requirement for federal employees to be immunized with two shots against COVID-19 has been in existence now for six months or so, and the other mandates, of course, for much longer. Quite sadly and ominously, we have now passed the two-year mark of this COVID-19 pandemic here in Canada. During this time, many questions have been answered—at least in part, perhaps—but there are many questions left with respect to COVID-19 on which we have received only partial or incomplete replies, but no answers.
Importantly, one of the questions that remains without an answer, despite significant and perhaps even heroic attempts to obtain an answer from the NDP-Liberal government, is the plan to end federal mandates. We are asking for a plan.
Let us be clear. I would like for the government today to announce that COVID is over. I know that this is not possible. I am a physician, after all. However, I will even make it simpler for the coalition government, in the sense that all I am asking for is a plan. Today I ask for a plan on behalf of Lyndy.
What does Lyndy want? Lyndy would like to visit her ailing and aging mother in British Columbia. It is almost impossible for her, because she is unvaccinated and she lives in Nova Scotia. Certainly she could drive to British Columbia if she wanted to; however, it would be way more expeditious for her to fly, but we all know that she is not able to fly because she remains unvaccinated.
That was something that she was very willing to accept over the past two years. She was willing to accept the consequences of her decision. However, two years into the pandemic, she sees both vaccinated and unvaccinated friends who are testing positive for COVID-19. That makes her wonder what the point is of continuing this particular mandate. Also, if she were to test positive for COVID-19, which we all know would afford her some degree of protection, should she not be allowed to travel to visit her ailing mother?
I also ask on behalf of Tom. Tom's mother-in-law is from Kazakhstan. Sadly, she is unvaccinated as well, and she is ill and hospitalized. Many out there will think she has COVID. She does not have COVID, but because of her vaccine status, Tom's mother-in-law is of course unable to travel to Canada. Tom's wife, who grew up in Kazakhstan in a dictatorship that is mostly aligned with Russia, is distrustful of any government program, and rightfully so, and of course she has chosen to be unimmunized as well. This means that she is unable to travel to Kazakhstan to be with her ailing mother or to potentially bring her mother to Canada.
I also ask on behalf of Ryan and Sarah, constituents of mine. Both are federal government employees. One has served in the RCMP for 17 or so years, and the other has served as a postal worker for approximately the same amount of time. They have asked multiple health care providers for the long-term effects related to mRNA vaccines. As everyone knows, this data simply does not exist, as we have used these vaccines on a large scale for a very, very short period of time. One might ask, “Well, you're a doctor. What do you think? Do you believe in these vaccines, and are they safe in the long term?” The answer to this question is simply, “Yes, I believe in them and I believe in that science.” Of course, that has informed my personal decision to be fully immunized.
We can easily understand, though, that if someone has their own personal choice, as they should, and requires long-term data for their personal choice and personal decision, we simply cannot give them an honest answer because the data does not exist.
That leads us to the concept of informed consent. As a physician of 26 years, I am personally very familiar with the process of informed consent. Let me lead us through some of this.
As per the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the consent “must be voluntary”, “the patient must have the mental capacity to consent” and “the patient must be properly informed”.
With respect to the voluntary aspect, the CMPA handbook for Canadian physicians goes on to say:
Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be successfully repudiated.
This is important, so I am glad everyone is paying close attention. It goes on to say, “In this context physicians must keep clearly in mind there may be circumstances when the initiative to consult a physician was not the patient's, but was rather that of a third party, a friend, an employer, or even a police officer.” Perhaps it could be the government. It then continues:
Under such circumstances the physician may be well aware that the patient is only very reluctantly following the course of action suggested or insisted upon by a third person. Then, physicians should be more than usually careful to assure themselves patients are in full agreement with what has been suggested, that there has been no coercion and that the will of other persons has not been imposed on the patient.
Despite all of this, there are still many here who believe that, during an unprecedented pandemic, vaccines could be mandated, people could be coerced, there could be duress, and that would be a fine and dandy situation. For some, that is an easy leap of faith to make. Others, of course, are vaccine hesitant. What has this meant for those who have refused? It has meant the inability to access services, have meaningful employment and be able to travel freely, both domestically and internationally.
Two years into this pandemic, the question that begs to be asked on behalf of many Canadians is when the mandate will end. More important, it needs to just give them a plan. Give me a break. Interestingly enough, just this week this very question, and I know we have spoken about this previously, was brought forward in the health committee and asked of the Minister of Health. Obviously I could read through the entire Hansard. However, I believe that a summary of several questions that were asked would be more germane. Members can review the Hansard in their spare time, should they decide to do so.
My hon. colleague began asking questions of the Minister of Health and this resulted in answers suggesting that the answer to this simple question was too complicated to be given. I do not want to stand here and sound all haughty and whatnot, but there are three medical doctors on the committee, two of whom are my colleagues across the aisle, who actually have masters degrees in public health. I suspect they could probably understand the answer.
Indeed, the chief public health officer went on to say that the situation is unstable and that because borders were involved, the international and domestic situation must be considered. She also said that, at the current time, without any benchmarks, and this part is great, the government and its adviser are just waiting to see what happens. Wow, that is a great plan.
I asked the Minister of Health to give us a plan for the domestic part of lifting COVID-19 mandates for Canadians. I asked for the metrics, the benchmarks, what other words we could possibly use to describe it to make it as simple as possible, and the minister then gave us a lecture on post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, long haul syndrome, or long COVID, whatever we wish to call it.
I then asked the minister if he was suggesting that long COVID was the reason to continue federal mandates and to keep federal employees off work. The reply to that, which again was a non-answer, was that 59 people died of COVID yesterday. He refused to answer the number of federal employees off work due to COVID mandates. From my research, I would say it is countless. It is over 1,000 at least, perhaps. That is a lot of people who are now potentially missing out on their pensions and meaningful work.
Once again, very pointedly, I asked the Minister of Health if there is a plan for the ending of federal mandates. He asked me which mandates, which is mind-boggling. I said all of them. Sadly, this exchange ended with the hon. Minister of Health saying it would be irresponsible to say yes or no to that question. That is absolutely mind-boggling to me and incomprehensible.
In conclusion, this concept is not only important for today, but it is important because it sets a precedent in its scope and longevity. It would perhaps help to apply it to other situations in the future. We have seen from the beginning of the pandemic that the government has not given answers and has not given us replies. This is the type of action that is uncharacteristic of a Canadian way of behaving. This state of affairs needs to end, a plan for ending mandates needs to be formulated and communicated expeditiously to all Canadians. If this job remains too complicated for the hon. minister and his advisers, I know many people on this side of the aisle who would be more than happy to help with that task.
1660 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:16:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will just reiterate the comments of Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Tam. On February 18, she said, “We should be able to manage the pandemic going into the future without, I think, some of the more stringent or restrictive public health measures.”
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:17:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for London North Centre.
There is no overstating the fact that the past two years have not been easy. As individuals and as a society, we are all worn out. The pandemic truly was a tragedy, and it had many and varied impacts on all aspects of society. Businesses had to close their doors either temporarily or, in some cases, permanently because they went bankrupt. Seniors were affected. In some residences, the death rate was utterly unacceptable. Some residents could not leave their rooms for weeks. They were totally isolated. We also know the pandemic had a terrible impact on everyone's mental health, especially those in isolation, such as seniors who had to stay in their rooms, as well as frontline workers who were so brave and did such amazing work to keep us safe. It also harmed young people, students who could not get the kind of educational experience they normally would. Basically, it was very hard for everyone.
The fact is that Canada chose a more careful approach. We were much more careful than many other countries. That is why we had a lower mortality rate than many other countries, including our neighbour to the south. Our mortality rate was roughly one-third of that in the United States. I think we should be proud of that. The Minister of Health has repeated many times that if the vaccination rate in the United States had been the same as in Canada, they would have saved 135,000 lives. That is a lot. We do not think about that so much these days. We no longer think about the lives that were saved. We only think about making life a bit easier by lifting all sorts of restrictions and mandates, even though we have lifted many so far and life has returned more or less to normal.
Our success in saving lives is a result of the wisdom and sacrifices of Canadians who have shown exemplary solidarity by following the health rules. It is also the result of the leadership shown by the federal and provincial governments. That leadership was crucial. In this crisis, the governments had to lead by example by working together. In other words, the governments were able to get on the same page.
The same cannot be said for the United States, where each state followed its own course. Sometimes the states worked against the current. In Florida, they wanted nothing to do with masks or vaccines. I even heard that in Florida, if someone went into a restaurant wearing a mask, they were kicked out for scaring the customers. California's approach, however, was similar to Canada's and the governor was nearly thrown out of office.
In a crisis, we cannot underestimate the vital importance of Canadians maintaining faith in their institutions. That is when it is most important for citizens to have faith in their institutions.
Institutions, in order to keep that faith, have to be consistent. They have to be judicious in the decisions that they are making. Any signs of inconsistency or arbitrariness can be fatal in terms of creating a loss of faith and confidence on the part of the people. If that happens, then no one is going to follow anything the government is suggesting. If that had happened in Canada, we would have had many more deaths than we experienced.
It is important also for governments to show leadership. That is why we have a vaccination mandate for federal employees. We are showing leadership. We got the support of the Canadian people to do that in an election where the Canadian people gave the Government of Canada a mandate to show the example across the country. That was very important in terms of saving lives and helping us to get out of the worst of the crisis sooner rather than later.
Canadians responded to the leadership that their governments showed. They obliged and the proof is in the fact that as of March 13, if we are looking at people five years old and older, 85% of the population has been fully vaccinated. If we look at the age group 18 and over, 56% have been fully vaccinated plus have obtained a booster.
An hon. member: One of the best in the world.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Yes.
Why is it important for the most people possible to be vaccinated? As André Picard said in The Globe and Mail, the pandemic playing field is not level. What did Mr. Picard mean by that? An 85-year-old is 340 times more likely to die from COVID than a 20-year-old. A 75-year-old is 140 times more likely to die from COVID than a 20-year-old. A 65-year-old is 65 times more likely.
André Picard is an expert in public health. His columns are consistently dealing with that issue. To quote him in The Globe and Mail recently, he wrote, “Now, by abandoning all mitigation measures at once...we’re shifting the pandemic burden entirely [to older Canadians] onto the immunocompromised, the unboosted”. That is very important to keep in mind. When we argue that we should just drop everything, we are doing harm to the most vulnerable in our society.
The other point I would like to make is that all pandemic-related decisions are extremely complex. Not only are they a function of many factors, but these factors are dynamic and constantly changing. The Minister of Health mentioned some of these factors in question period in his wonderful responses to the questions he received. Here are some of the factors that public health has to consider and the government has to consider when deciding when to remove restrictions: the vaccination rate, hospital capacity, domestic epidemiology, international epidemiology and social impacts. This is a very long list of complicated factors that have to be looked at.
We are making comparisons that are a little too facile. We say that if the provinces do this then the federal government should do this. This seems to be the rhetoric that is coming from the other side, creating this kind of equivalency that is confusing if one is not listening closely. However, it is important to distinguish between the federal and provincial contexts. Federal measures focus on international transmissions. Provincial restrictions do not. There is a big difference between a crowded conveyance like an airplane or a train and movie theatres, gyms, shopping malls, grocery stores and the like. We have to use our wisdom to make distinctions that are important, especially in times of crisis.
I will conclude by quoting Mr. Picard one more time. He says, “We should not, after two years of solid effort and no small amount of sacrifice, be so foolish as to abandon prevention.” We must remain vigilant, responsible and wise.
1160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:44:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech.
We know that measures for travellers will be relaxed on April 1. That is good news, but it is a little late. Once again, the government is slow to act.
It is important that the government provide a timetable for lifting health measures in order to maintain social cohesion. We know full well that everyone is tired of the pandemic, tired of wearing a mask and tired of following health restrictions. However, we are hopeful and moving forward.
We must not lift all the restrictions immediately. We must apply the lessons learned from the previous waves, because there may be a sixth wave. I am asking my colleague what he thinks of presenting a timetable for lifting health measures in order to maintain social cohesion.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:45:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not unreasonable to suggest this. However, one also has to do so while keeping in mind the nature of the pandemic and the fact that it is constantly a fluid situation. It is a constantly ever-evolving situation.
I think that, when we look at the pandemic, we cannot look at it in isolation. We have to look at it domestically. We have to look at the international situation. We have to be mindful of those things. We have to take public health advice. It is very difficult to come up with a timetable when the pandemic is constantly evolving and constantly in flux.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:45:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to start out by indicating that I have always been in strong support of mandates and I do not believe it is my job as an elected official to make public health decisions. I think that is up to public health experts.
One of the things that I have been concerned about and certainly have raised in the House before is that I feel that the pandemic and mandates have been used to divide, in the way that this government has utilized very divisive language, which has resulted in families turning against family members and colleagues turning against colleagues. Even now, we see people who are choosing to wear masks being attacked for choosing to do so.
I want to ask my hon. colleague if he agrees with his colleague from Louis-Hébert that this Liberal government has made a deliberate decision to politicize Canada's vaccine strategy on the eve of and during the last election.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a respect, a friendship and a great affinity for the colleague that was just mentioned, the MP for Louis-Hébert. I was elected with him in 2015. On that matter, we simply disagree. I do not believe that there has been a politicization of the pandemic. Certainly, there has been division in Canadian society; there is no question.
However, there is nothing wrong with encouraging people who can get vaccinated, where it does not pose a health challenge or some other challenge to their physical well-being, to get vaccinated. That is—
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 5:00:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things we saw early in this pandemic was that rather than having domestic production of vaccines, the Liberal-NDP coalition decided to raid the COVAX group and take away from countries that desperately needed it. What I would like to see, and what members on this side of the House would like to see, is an improvement in being able to produce more vaccines domestically so that we have a little more protection when it comes to the future of Canada's health.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 5:01:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for her speech.
The pandemic is constantly evolving and the sixth wave is under way, although it has not quite hit Canada yet. I think it is a little simplistic to say that, because there is no plan or a vote on a plan, all the restrictions should just be lifted.
Would the Conservative motion also presume that there is some flexibility and options if the situation were to evolve? I agree that there should be a plan, even though we have not seen one yet.
What does my colleague think? I would rather see some nuance, rather than getting caught up in stereotypes.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 5:02:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague raised some important points. We do not know everything about the pandemic and do not know what will happen tomorrow. That is true of life in general.
I do not think that there is any real justification for federal restrictions and mandates right now. These mandates should be lifted today.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
