SoVote

Mar/24/22 10:41:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the health committee this week and last, Conservatives have asked the government what its plan is. The Liberals failed to provide that plan to Canadians. We continue to ask for their plan. We asked for them to show us what benchmarks they are using that will see the restrictions lifted and reduce the harm on the very vulnerable people that the member opposite mentioned. Of course, we want the government to show us the data, show us its plan and end the mandates.

86 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Mar/24/22 10:42:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a great presentation by our colleague, the official opposition health critic. This excellent presentation illustrates how well the official opposition has been doing its job here in the House for weeks and months now, by calling for one simple thing: a plan for lifting federal health measures. We started off by asking questions, asking whether the Liberals could provide Canadians with any dates, a path forward, or any hope that these measures would be lifted. From across the way, we got answers filled with statistics, case numbers and vaccination rates. We were told that the situation was worse here than anywhere else or, alternatively, that it was less bad. We got all sorts of answers except for the answer to our question. We wanted a plan with dates, and we wanted to know what criteria the government would set and evaluate for determining the end of the federal health measures. It is always the same thing with the Liberals. We are always wondering when they are going to take action. At the start of the pandemic, they were behind the curve. They were late realizing that there was a pandemic. They were late purchasing vaccines in the beginning. They were lagging behind on just about everything. Now that the provinces are starting to lift health restrictions, the Liberal government is once again lagging behind. It is lagging behind the science and the decisions of the provinces and also of other countries. The NDP-Liberal government is incapable of making decisions at the right time. Who is paying for the price? All Canadians. The fact that we are talking about this again today demonstrates that this government is incapable of taking action, and that it does not care about its own employees, its officials, the country's economy, cross-border trade, the tourism industry or all the federally regulated workers across Canada. All that is no big deal for the government. It has become clear since Monday that this NDP-Liberal Prime Minister had other things in mind than lifting health restrictions in this country. In the current context, how can this NDP-Liberal Prime Minister justify keeping the restrictions in place while the provinces are systematically lifting them? We have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, because Canadians have stepped up and gotten vaccinated. I would remind members that at the beginning of the pandemic, no one knew anything about this disease. Science stepped up, and people stepped up by getting vaccinated in huge numbers. I commend all Canadians who did so, all the health care workers who worked so hard in such uncertain times when we did not know what we were dealing with, and everyone who worked on the front lines to be there for Canadians and ensure their health and safety. The situation has changed in two years. I know that the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister likes to live in the past, but a lot of things have changed. For the first time in two years, Canadians have hope that life can get back to normal. Why does the Prime Minister insist on contradicting the experts? That is the real question. We do not have an answer to that. Why does this NDP-Liberal Prime Minister not want to listen to the experts? Why is he not doing what his provincial counterparts are doing? Does the Prime Minister now think that he is more important than the scientists whose recommendations he claimed to be following throughout the pandemic? Now, it is no big deal if he does not listen to scientists. As my health critic colleague was saying, the Prime Minister is following political science, not medical science. That is what we are now realizing. He was unable to win the majority of Canadians' votes by calling an election in the midst of a pandemic. No one wanted an election, but he chose to do what he pleased and call an election anyway. It was no big deal, even if it broke some of the rules. He absolutely had to do it. He wanted his government to win a majority to lead the country. He did not succeed. Canadians were clear. They told him no. What did the Prime Minister do? He bought a majority in Parliament through a coalition with the NDP. That was his response. That is what he has been spending the past weeks and months doing instead of thinking about public servants, Canadians and all those who are unable to do their jobs because the federal government decided to maintain vaccine mandates, which are no longer needed, according to the public health experts of all the provinces and many other experts around the world. Speaking of experts, Quebec's health minister recently said that they were working towards lifting restrictions and that we need to learn to live with the virus. That is what the Liberals should be focusing on. I am not the only one saying this. Two medical experts told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health that there was limited scientific basis for vaccine mandates. Dr. David Jacobs, the president of the Ontario Association of Radiologists, spoke about the immature actions of the Prime Minister of Canada, which is not nothing, and about how he added fuel to the fire when he called unvaccinated people a fringe minority and racists. Those words are not becoming of the Prime Minister of Canada, or, I should say, the NDP‑Liberal Prime Minister of Canada. According to Dr. Jacobs, unvaccinated Canadians are people who are just simply afraid or who have looked at the research and disagree with the findings. He was essentially saying that one would expect the Prime Minister to be more open-minded. Dr. Shirin Kalyan, a professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, also expressed similar doubts about the current blanket vaccine mandates. In January, Dr. Howard Njoo, deputy chief public health officer of Canada and one of the experts advising the NDP-Liberal government, went even further and stated that vaccination should be voluntary. I do not know what science the government says it is following, but we cannot find it. We would like to see it, as well as the advice that led it to make vaccination mandatory for federal or federally regulated employees. Unfortunately, it does not seem to exist. The advice always stated the opposite. Yes, vaccination was highly recommended. However, did vaccination have to be mandatory? I remember a certain Prime Minister saying that he would never force Canadians to get vaccinated. Who was that? It was the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. All of a sudden, two days before a certain date in August, vaccine mandates became the thing to do. Two days later, an election was called, and the pandemic became an election issue. The pandemic was exploited for political purposes. The Prime Minister paid the price, because Canadians said no. However, as I said earlier, he has since bought himself a majority, but that is another story, and we can talk about that later. So far, the Prime Minister's inaction has hurt our economy, international trade and the Canadian tourism industry. It continues to cause irreparable harm, since thousands of federal employees and federally regulated workers are still out of work because the government is sitting idle and is not listening to its own experts. In conclusion, I would like to know when the Prime Minister plans to get public servants back to work, lift the vaccine mandate and allow Canadians to get back to normal. It is time to stop playing partisan politics with COVID-19 and the pandemic. It is time to do what experts are urging us to do and end vaccine mandates across the country.

1299 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 10:52:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that things are getting better with COVID, and everyone is justifiably relaxing the mandates, but the question is at what rate. Some provinces have been more cautious from the beginning; some have been less cautious. If we look at the numbers, we see that the provinces that have been more cautious have done better. Globally as well, if we compare countries, we see that some have been more cautious and some have been less cautious. As a result of that, the United States has three times the death rate per population that Canada has. Does the member opposite not agree that perhaps in matters of public health, one ought to be cautious?

117 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/24/22 10:52:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is a doctor and he must follow the science, but he must not choose the science he wants to follow. I advise him to follow the medical science and not the political science of this Prime Minister. He is the one who said in committee that we will do everything to please the NDP. I have him quoted as saying that, and so now I know that he was supportive of this new neo-democrat government.

80 words

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

Mar/24/22 10:53:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we basically agree. Everyone is tired of the pandemic, tired of the measures and just plain tired. The vaccine passport was eliminated, and everyone was happy. We are still wearing masks. We are fed up. On Friday evening, I went to the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, and there were 800 people crammed in, wearing masks. We cannot take it anymore. It was even a little ridiculous, because at one point in the show, the actors come into the audience, so they had to put on a mask. It totally broke the spell. We are eager to be done with all this, but we are not there yet. We cannot put the cart before the horse. My colleague spoke extensively about scientists, but what does he have to say to Dr. Boileau, Quebec's interim public health director, who said yesterday that Quebec would inevitably see another spike in COVID-19 cases? In Quebec, the science on health says we must be careful. What does my colleague say to that?

174 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/24/22 10:54:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, let us be careful. A doctor is telling us to be careful. A doctor is telling us that the number of cases is on the rise. They may be on the rise, but I did not see the Quebec government change its reopening and lockdown plans. I did not hear it say that it would lock the province down again and bring back the vaccine passport. It presented a plan based on science, and it is following expert opinion. That is what the federal government should do. The problem is that it is not doing it. The experts say we should start lifting the health measures. That is what the government should do. In response, the Minister of Health keeps coming out with all sorts of numbers that mean absolutely nothing. More importantly, he is not giving Canadians any hope.

143 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Mar/24/22 10:55:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, so far, the BA.2 subvariant has led to a significant increase in cases in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and other countries around the world. Hong Kong has the highest mortality rate in the world. South Korea is seeing a record number of cases. My question is as follows: Does the hon. member believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is over?

64 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/24/22 10:56:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague on her French. I am grateful. Her French is excellent. I understood the question, and that says it all. We will learn to live with COVID-19. I have never heard anyone here say that COVID-19 and the pandemic are over. The science is telling us that things have changed over the past two years. Everyone is vaccinated, or almost everyone. Canada has the highest vaccination rate in the world. We have treatments and tools. Hospitals and doctors now know how to treat COVID-19 patients. We need to adapt to the new reality. We are simply asking the government to adapt, to lift the vaccine mandates, and to follow the science. That is all.

127 words

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Mar/24/22 10:57:02 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today in the House to address this very important topic. The COVID-19 pandemic has obviously impacted everyday life across Canada and around the world for two years now. It has also put our health care systems to the test, disrupted our economy, and altered our social and economic interactions. In response to the crisis, the Government of Canada took serious measures to protect Canadians' health and safety. As the pandemic evolves, it is important to keep reviewing the effectiveness of the measures we have taken. I understand what the Conservative Party and the House itself want, and I understand the importance today of reviewing various mandates, such as the vaccine mandate, because it is something the Government of Canada does every day. This is part of the ongoing review of the measures in place to fight COVID-19. As I said earlier, the Government of Canada is constantly reviewing the measures and will continue to do so with a view to protecting Canadians' health and safety using the least restrictive measures possible, in order to minimize the impact of these measures on our individual, personal, family, economic and social lives. There are real consequences to adding or eliminating any public health measure. That is why, before imposing these measures, we have always done a thorough analysis based on scientific evidence and consistently reviewed our decisions. It is important to point out that the situation today is totally different from the situation we faced in March 2020. In the past two years, Canadians have rigorously followed public health measures to protect one another. Most of them got vaccinated, wore masks, physically distanced, and stayed home when they were sick. Thanks to these often difficult efforts, we entered a phase where it is easier to participate in activities in person, to attend gatherings and to travel. We all did our part. We learned lessons. As a result, we are now better prepared to move forward. As Dr. Tam reminded us again recently, COVID-19 is here to stay. We are monitoring the omicron subvariants and in particular the BA.2 subvariant, which have led to an increase in the number of cases in many parts of Canada and the rest of the world. Although the number of serious COVID-19 cases is dropping in Canada and most other countries, several hospitals in Canada are still under considerable stress. The pandemic is therefore still putting pressure on our health care system and our health care workers. We need to be able manage this pressure when public health measures are lifted in many parts of the country. We must also be aware that, during this transition period, we do not all see the lifting of health measures in the same light. Some people are thrilled to get back to their usual activities, while others are more careful and sometimes far less comfortable. In the past two years, Canadians have shown incredible flexibility and great resilience, and they will continue to do so. They will make choices that reflect their own reality, based on factors such as their personal situation, their aversion to risk, their COVID-19 vaccination status, the number of COVID-19 cases in their environment, underlying medical issues, and the risk associated with contact with friends and others who are infected. For example, some people could very well continue to wear a mask, even if it is not mandatory in certain places. We therefore encourage everyone to continue making informed decisions in order to protect themselves, their family and their community, and to respect others’ decisions by showing compassion. Screening tests are among the tools that will help Canadians make informed decisions in order to manage their own health and safety. I would like to take a few minutes of your time to discuss them. Rapid testing, in particular, empowers Canadians by providing them with the ability, on their own terms, to determine quickly and easily whether they have COVID-19, thereby building confidence and supporting reopening efforts. Ensuring equitable and efficient access to COVID‑19 rapid tests will remain a priority because Canadians are increasingly relying on them to make decisions about things such as whether they should visit a loved one, particularly someone in a long-term care facility, send their kids to school or organize a family gathering. The federal government started buying and providing rapid tests, free of charge, to the provinces and territories as soon as October 2020. In last December alone, the Government of Canada delivered more than 35 million rapid antigen tests to provinces and territories. Another 140 million landed in Canada in January. In light of the growing demand for rapid tests across the country, the Government of Canada also introduced Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. The bill, which received royal assent earlier this month, will provide Health Canada with $2.5 billion in funding and the statutory authority to purchase and distribute rapid tests across Canada. With this funding, the Government of Canada will be able to ensure Canadians continue to have the rapid tests that they need, free of charge and in all provinces and territories. In addition to supplying provinces and territories and indigenous communities, the funding also allows Health Canada to continue to provide tests for distribution through important partners such as the Canadian Red Cross, chambers of commerce and pharmacies. This will allow schools to stay open and help protect our children, as well as our parents or grandparents in long-term care. With this funding, the Government of Canada will put in place critical contracts in a highly competitive global market to purchase efficient and sufficient quantities of rapid tests to meet the anticipated demand across the country. As we continue to manage COVID-19, the Government of Canada is also making use of waste-water surveillance to help us understand the community transmission of COVID-19. This waste-water surveillance is an extraordinary tool, which PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is using independently of clinical testing so that we can learn whether the virus is increasing or decreasing in a community by testing the community's sewage. Waste-water testing is conducted in collaboration with communities and local health authorities to help inform decision-making and public health guidance. The Government of Canada's scientists are working together on a community-level waste-water surveillance program in 65 locations across the country. Samples are then sent to the Public Health Agency of Canada's national microbiology laboratory in Winnipeg, and I know some of our members of Parliament will be happy to be reminded of the pride we have in that laboratory, for analysis and detection of the virus that causes COVID-19, including variants of concern. Waste-water testing provides unique opportunities to detect and monitor emerging variants of interest and concern. With limitations related to clinical testing, for example, molecular and PCR testing across Canada, waste-water is therefore an important surveillance tool to provide a picture of the community burden related to COVID-19. The testing and monitoring tools I just mentioned and briefly described all help orient our public health measures, particularly those in effect at the Canadian border. These measures, together with all the other COVID‑19 measures, are based on scientific data and evidence about the current epidemiological situation in Canada and around the world. That is why, as of April 1, fully vaccinated travellers will not have to present COVID‑19 test results prior to entering Canada by air, land or sea. We will obviously continue to review and adjust our border measures, as we have always done, in an effort to keep Canadians safe while ensuring efficiency at our borders for both travellers and trade. Everything I just mentioned has helped put us in a position to be able to manage COVID-19 more effectively in the coming months. The measures will continue to change along with the epidemiological situation. All the knowledge and tools we acquired over the past two years, including the strategic use of testing and tracing, as well as changing border measures based on the most recent data, will be very useful to us. That being said, it is very important to remember that vaccination continues to be the most important tool for protecting against the serious consequences and spread of COVID-19. Over 85% of Canadians have already received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and approximately 81% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. Nearly 18 million people received a booster dose, and approximately 57% of children aged 5 to 11 have now received at least one dose of the vaccine. Vaccination will continue to be essential as new variants and subvariants continue to emerge. When it comes to COVID-19, we cannot afford to become complacent. This virus does not follow a predictable path. There will continue to be ups and downs. There will continue to be new variants, and there will continue to be new waves. We have to be prepared to manage that. This is a matter of responsibility and transparency. As well as we have done so far, we can always do better. In the short term, that means continuing to get vaccinated, including boosters. About three million eligible individuals in Canada have not yet received the first or second dose of the primary vaccine series. In addition, approximately 60% of adults have received a booster shot, which considerably reduces the risk of serious consequences. That is not enough though. Even though we would like to put COVID‑19 behind us, we cannot take our success for granted. In conclusion, over the past two years, the Government of Canada's approach to addressing COVID‑19 has always been based on scientific data, the epidemiological situation, and the precautionary principle, and that will not change. We will continue to base our policies on the latest data and lessons learned over the past two years. Canadians expect nothing less. Even though many communities are beginning to reconsider their public health measures, we must acknowledge that COVID‑19 is still very much a part of our lives, which means we must continue to be careful. As Dr. Tam said before the Standing Committee on Health on Monday, the epidemiological situation in Canada is improving but it is unstable. We have seen this in Europe, where there has been a resurgence of COVID-19 very recently. The same thing could happen here in Canada because of the presence of omicron and the emergence of the BA.2 subvariant, which is 50% more transmissible and contagious than the original omicron variant. As such, even as we carefully return to the many activities we have missed over the past two years, we must not let our guard down. Vaccination continues to be one of the most effective ways available to all Canadians to protect themselves and their family. This, combined with masking and other personal protection measures, will remain important in the weeks to come. As I conclude my remarks today, I want to acknowledge the full range of emotions that we are feeling right now as jurisdictions adjust the public health measures that we have lived with on and off for two years now. I strongly encourage everyone to be prudent and patient and compassionate toward others as we continue to adapt to the evolving pandemic.

1921 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 11:12:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for taking the time to speak to our motion today. In his remarks, he talked about transparency and about the different surveillance tools and the monitoring that happens. I am wondering if the minister take the opportunity today to be transparent with Canadians and share with us what the benchmarks are. He mentioned the lifting of one of the testing requirements on April 1 at the border. If we use that as an example, what were the specific metrics that were used, whether it was hospital capacity, numbers in wastewater surveillance or case positivity rates? As well, will the government commit to releasing the metrics it would use to reimpose COVID restrictions once they are lifted? We are calling on the government today to follow the science that the provinces have used to lift the restrictions that the federal government has put in place. Will the minister commit in this place today to release the metrics that were used previously to lift some measures and could potentially be used to reimpose measures in the future? What are those metrics?

185 words

All Topics

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Mar/24/22 11:13:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his fair and fine question. I will answer only one piece of it, as he spoke about border measures. We have been using a set of measures to monitor the way in which those border measures should be adjusted. One of them has been on the PHAC website for more than a year now. It is the positivity rate for people entering Canada. We have had tests, PCR tests, for more than a year now. If the member looks at the PHAC data, he will see that because of omicron, in January the positivity rate for people travelling into Canada, either by land or through airports, was 40 times the positivity rate that we had seen prior to omicron at the beginning of December. Fortunately, that positivity rate then fell in February and again in March, which is the reason we are now going to be able to move to new rules on April 1.

164 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 11:14:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Health for his presentation on everything the government has done to manage the crisis. One thing he did not mention, which I would have liked to hear, is his justification for Canada's vote at the WTO against temporarily waiving patents. This proposal came from India and South Africa, two countries that were the source of variants of concern. To call this a global crisis means that what happens in one country will automatically impact other countries. However, if we leave the distribution of vaccines and medications solely and blindly in the hands of the market, what will happen is that only the rich countries will be able to procure doses. Meanwhile, vaccines and medications will be treated as business opportunities rather than shared resources to be used to address this global health crisis. When the question comes up again, will Canada continue to treat vaccines as a source of profit for big pharma, or will it actually do the one thing that will get us out of this crisis? Let me remind the House that while we are here talking about administering a fourth dose, there are billions of people around the world who have not yet had access to their first.

210 words

All Topics

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Mar/24/22 11:15:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question. First, as my colleague suggests, the Canadian government and Canada will have to continue to work with the other countries to ensure that the distribution of pharmaceutical production capacity, such as for vaccines, is equitable, including in developing countries. Second, Canada committed to delivering 200 million doses of vaccine in 2022. So far, we have already delivered roughly 100 million doses, or around half. There remains another 100 million doses to deliver, and we will see to it as soon as possible. Third, Canada ranks sixth among the countries that provide vaccines. We are very proud of that, and we will continue to work hard not only to deliver these vaccines, but also to have these vaccines administered in developing countries.

135 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/24/22 11:16:43 a.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. Health measures are being lifted by provinces. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit communities continue to say they lack basic health care and infrastructure. This is dangerous, especially for elders. Does the minister agree that increased financial investments and infrastructure must be provided for indigenous health?

50 words

All Topics

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Mar/24/22 11:17:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, through the member for Nunavut, I would like to thank Minister John Main in Nunavut, with whom I have a very good relationship. I have a lot of esteem for him. We have been working on many different things, including providing health care support to the people of Nunavut, including providing rapid tests. We had a brief very recent exchange on that to make sure that the rapid tests and of course vaccines are coming at the right speed and in the right manner. I congratulate and thank the large number of people in Nunavut who have been vaccinated. As we build on the health care support and investment that we have provided to Nunavut over the last few months, we will continue to be able to protect the health and safety of those living in that territory.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Mar/24/22 11:18:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the health restrictions in our country and the vaccination rates across our nation have contributed to a hearteningly low death rate in Canada when compared to many of our peer nations in the G7, particularly in the U.K. and the United States. It is evident that our protocols have managed to keep Canadians safe. What specific protocols can we look back on as ones that contributed to our lower death rate?

78 words

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Mar/24/22 11:18:52 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think we heard recently that if we had the same death rate in Canada that we saw in the United States, there would have been 60,000 more people dying in Canada than we saw over the last two years. Despite that, 7,000 Canadians did die over the last few weeks because of omicron. These are obviously individual and community tragedies. The reason we have been able to do much better in Canada relative to many other countries is that there has been less misinformation and less disinformation, in particular on vaccination. In Canada, we have been able to trust our experts, trust our scientists and get access to that tool, which is the most important tool for continuing to protect people's health, lives and safety.

131 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Mar/24/22 11:19:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the isolation, the financial pressures and the extraordinary measures that Canadians have endured have all taken a toll on our mental health. Pre-COVID statistics tell us that every day an average of 11 Canadians die by suicide. For every person lost by suicide, over 275 Canadians attempt suicide each and every day. Unnecessary vaccine mandates are further exacerbating our mental health issues. Over 468 days ago, the members opposite all voted in favour of my motion to bring an easy-to-remember three-digit suicide prevention number, 988, to Canada. Can the minister tell us why they have done nothing to bring the 988 to Canada? They have dragged their feet. Why have they not implemented this important number?

122 words

All Topics

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos

Mar/24/22 11:20:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have these brief reactions. The member is correct in speaking to the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. About half of Canadians report that their mental health has suffered because of COVID-19. Eighty per cent of health care workers also say that their mental health has fallen. I was speaking to a representative of the Canadian Pharmacists Association yesterday. About 90% of pharmacists in Canada have found the experience of the last two years very stressful. Regarding the engagement and commitment of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the minister spoke to that at the health committee just a few days ago, I think on Monday. I would invite the member to look at the record. We assure him that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions will keep working very diligently on that important file.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Mar/24/22 11:21:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Since the start of this pandemic, I have often asked myself the following question: What should I do? It is the pre-eminent ethical and political question. In this debate, we must consider the ethical principle of responsibility. That is the approach taken by the Bloc Québécois from the outset of the pandemic. Since the first wave, we have been making decisions by trying to predict the positive and negative impacts they would have on the future. We did not make decisions based on what had happened or what would happen. We owe it to the most vulnerable to do what is ethically responsible. I will try not to make this a partisan debate. Obviously, everyone is fed up with the pandemic and tired of restrictions. When making public health policy, we must avoid making decisions based on whims or on which way the wind is blowing. As representatives of the people, we must avoid being opportunistic and partisan. Above all, we must make informed decisions that are based not on individual interests or how we feel that day, but on the common good and everyone's best interest. The position that the Bloc Québécois is taking today is guided by these ethical considerations. It might be easier if we were in an endemic situation. Has the pandemic reached its endemic threshold? Some people think that, once we reach this threshold, we will be able to lift all of the health measures and act as if the pandemic and the virus no longer exist. In the five waves that have hit us, what infuriates me is to see how some people and some members of the House have unfortunately appropriated the opinions of experts and scientists. We have embraced a new religion, scientism. Scientists, however are unpretentious people. Usually, they are certain only about their uncertainty. Science is merely the calculation of uncertainties. The difference between science and religion is that science can be falsified. That being said, it is really tiresome to hear so many people say that we need to base our decisions on science. I do not have a problem with that, but scientists themselves cannot agree on many issues. Beyond the scientific facts, we need to apply the ethics of responsibility for the common good. That is the point to our discussion today. Will immediately lifting all the health measures as proposed in today’s motion help or hurt the situation? That is the question. I would like to talk about the endemic phase, because no one has brought it up during this debate. Some experts, if I may use the term, say that those who believe that the word “endemic” means living with the virus and lifting all health restrictions are wrong. It can even be dangerous to believe that, because it can lead to an excess of optimism and, by extension, unexpected waves of outbreaks. In the endemic phase, we still need to control the disease. We need to limit the spread of the virus by providing better ventilation, controlling the spread and increasing hospital capacity, since some people will end up in hospital. Point (a) of today’s motion says that we need to protect jobs. I looked at the employment rate recently. In February 2020, it was 5.7%. Two years later, in February 2022, after two years of pandemic, it was 5.5%. Point (b) mentions enabling Canadians to travel unimpeded. As of this morning, according to the United States embassy and consulate, if I want to cross the border, I must show a passport, proof of vaccination or a negative test result. If I want to go to Europe, the same rules apply. Just recently, WHO spoke out strongly against the lifting of measures in Europe. Were measures lifted too soon? Earlier, I was listening to the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who talked about a plan throughout his speech. We agree that a plan is needed. The federal government should have tabled a plan like the provinces and Quebec did. A plan would enable us to plan and to adapt to the situation. There are some constants in this pandemic. Quebec's plan includes lifting the mask mandate in some public places as of mid-April, but just having a plan gives Quebec the time to react if the number of cases grows, as is currently happening in Europe. It is therefore quite possible that the Quebec government will tell us that the lifting of the mask mandate is postponed for two weeks. However, the federal government did not table a plan, and that is shameful. It would be good if the government would think about that and if today's debate would inspire the government to table a plan. Point (c) of today's motion says that we need to ensure the recovery of Canada's tourism industry. However, the day we lift all restrictions and face a resurgence in the number of infections, the tourism industry will be the first one affected. One of the constants of this pandemic is that we have always had a month to see things coming. What happens in Europe happens here a month later. We thought we would be spared during the first and second waves, but that has never been the case, and we might be on the verge of a sixth wave. Another constant that everyone has experienced is that infections surge every time restrictions are lifted. The restrictions were lifted for legitimate reasons, such as ensuring that people would keep complying with public health measures and messages, to protect mental health, or to give people a break over the Christmas holidays or March break, for example. Implementing public health measures is akin to practising medicine on a large scale. If patients stop complying, there is nothing else that can be done. I believe that we are on the verge of a new wave, at least in Quebec. The people who are saying that it is not so bad because omicron is milder should try saying that to patients with terminal cancer who do not have COVID‑19 and who feel abandoned. The pandemic is affecting our health care networks, which were already weakened. Our quality of life has been restricted because these networks have not been able to provide care to patients dealing with anything other than COVID‑19. The federal government needs to increase health transfers immediately. It is inconceivable to think that the government would not provide more funding to strengthen our networks so that we can get through the sixth, seventh and eighth waves without having our lives disrupted like they were during the first five waves.

1158 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 45