44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 24, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/24/22 2:32:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, all 10 provinces and most G7 countries around the world are lifting the mandates. Despite this, federal mandates around vaccines for employment and travel persist. At the health committee, we already heard the Minister of Health talk specifically about the plan to end federal mandates, but he did not quite make it. He talked about this complicated science and did not elaborate further.
We, on this side of the House, would like to know. What is this complicated science the NDP-Liberal government is not sharing and when will the minister make it available to all Canadians?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 2:33:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his non-answer reply to that question.
We know there are countless federal employees who are off work who sadly perhaps have not been immunized. What about Douglas, who is a federal scientist? He has a unique story. He has had COVID twice and is also in an antibody study at the Ottawa Health Research Institute. Interestingly enough, and shockingly, he works from home and is still not allowed to go to work. How can this happen?
When will the current federal government stop politicizing this and discriminating against hard-working Canadians and provide a date they can go back to work?
109 words
- 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 3:59:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
At this point in time, what the motion suggests is not immediate; it is only a plan. It is an important suggestion for Canadians to maintain hope for a plan for the future. It is not immediate or for tomorrow; it is only a plan. The operative word here is “plan”.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:00:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the shameful behaviour of the NDP-Liberal coalition government taking vaccines from the COVAX program has led to vaccine inequity around this world. Certainly, that is the kind of thing we do not want to be associated with as Canadians, and as Conservatives, we do not support that style of governance.
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:01:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his friendship through our time here in the House, as well as his good guidance. The fearful part of me, being a new member, is the fact that I believe, and this makes me very sad and sometimes angry, that the government wants to punish those who do not agree with its ideological agenda.
It has now made these people who had had good-paying jobs, in a sad and insane twist of fate, beholden to the government for their income. They do not have jobs anymore, so they are going to have to access the social system. That is the sad road map I see for the government and for Canadians.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 4:02:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt.
Interestingly enough, at the Standing Committee on Health, we had some psychologists there this week. When asked very pointedly if they thought that bullying and name-calling was a great way to get people to change their minds, they reminded all of us very clearly that is an absolutely unacceptable way to go about any type of business, and certainly well within those confines of coercion I spoke about.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
