SoVote

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Mar/24/22 11:53:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Vancouver Kingsway. It is my great honour, as always, to stand in this place and address my colleagues, and I want to start by acknowledging something that I know we all know. We all know how difficult COVID-19 has been on us. We all know how hard it has been on children and we all know how hard it has been on parents and families. I am a mother myself, and to see my teenage children missing parts of their childhood and parts of their teenage years has been very hard. To be trapped in a house with a very active 14-year-old boy is not easy for any of us, and I sympathize with families across the country and around the world that have had to deal with that. This pandemic has been very difficult on people's livelihoods and on businesses too. There are businesses in my riding that started right before the pandemic and could not access supports throughout this pandemic, and it has been heartbreaking to see that. We have seen the impacts on women, and not just women in Canada but women around the world, who have been set back decades by what has happened during this pandemic. Of course, my heart breaks for the people who have lost their lives and for the families that have lost children, mothers, fathers, brothers or sisters. My heart breaks for them. In my province of Alberta, over 4,000 people died. That is 4,000 families. That is a massive impact in a province like Alberta. When I think of all of these things and our best way forward and the best way we can work together to come out of COVID-19, what I keep thinking is that we cannot and we must not ever politicize something like a global health pandemic. We must listen to science. We must listen to medical professionals. I am not a doctor; that is not my role in this pandemic. My role will be to listen to doctors, to listen to scientists and to listen to experts. What I know is that experts are telling me that COVID-19 is not over. I do want COVID-19 to be over. That is fine. However, that is not how global health pandemics work. It is not over. We have numbers spiking around the world. We have numbers spiking in places as far away as South Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The numbers are climbing; the variants are developing. I am going to talk today a bit about the need to have a global response. I do not think anyone in this place will be surprised that vaccine equity is one thing that is vitally important to me and a tool we need to use. I also want to talk a bit about what results when we politicize this pandemic, and I am going to use my province as the example for that. Members all heard the Premier of Alberta tell us that last summer was going to be the best summer ever. My premier went so far as to print hats that said, “Best summer ever”. Do members know what it became instead? It was a cautionary tale for provinces and countries around the world. We know what happens when COVID-19 is politicized. All we have to do is look at Alberta. Albertans have been hit hard by COVID-19, and when the premier's poll numbers were hit just as hard by his terrible decisions, he decided to do the wrong thing. He decided to politicize COVID-19. He put politics, or in this case his own political survival, ahead of the interests of Albertans. He said, “influenza...does not generally threaten life apart from the elderly and the immunocompromised”. He said it is a flu. He mimicked Donald Trump's lines and even pushed ineffective and potentially dangerous treatments. During the third wave of COVID-19, Alberta had one of the highest infection rates in Canada. It had one of the highest infection rates in the world. This is what happens when we politicize this. I also want to talk about an idea. I think all of us in here could recognize, at least intellectually, that if we want a global health pandemic to be over, we need to have a global response. We need to make sure vaccines are available for everyone. We cannot have a motion that asks us to ignore science and thinks that is a reasonable response to the global health pandemic. What I would have liked to see is the Conservative Party bring forward a motion that said something like, let us update our Canadian access to medicines regime to include COVID-19 medications. Let us work together to make sure that Canada is playing an active role in waiving intellectual property rights so that countries around the world can produce their own vaccines for their own populations, and let us work with countries around the world to help with vaccine hesitancy, to make sure that when vaccines are delivered, there are supply chains, there are syringes and there are all those things that need to happen so that people can actually get vaccinated. I would have loved, and would have been so supportive of, a Conservative motion that called for the Canadian government to finally live up to its obligations to deliver the promised doses to COVAX. COVAX is a system that was supposed to ensure that the world was vaccinated. However, that system does not work when countries such as Canada have bilateral agreements and take all of the vaccine stock, and leave countries that desperately need doses to vaccinate their health care workers and their vulnerable populations with none. This is the opposite of a good global health response. This is the opposite of what we need to do. I have to say that I look at our response to COVID-19, and I think to myself: We face a global challenge with Ukraine. We face a fundamental global challenge with climate change, and our global responses have not lived up to that task. I worry that these are showing us what a global response will look like in the future for other challenges. I am not a virologist. I am not an epidemiologist. I am not a physician. I am pretty sure there are few of us in this chamber who are. This motion that has been brought forward is asking us to be all of those things. It turns what should be a scientific decision into a political decision, and that is wrong. It is not up to us to make scientific decisions. It must never be our role to make scientific decisions. Our job is to develop policy and legislation that is in the best interests of Canadians. In my province of Alberta, we have lost more than 4,000 people, and we are going to lose more. Yesterday we had 500 more cases reported, and variants continue to threaten us. Until we are able to vaccinate the world, and until Canada does its part to vaccinate the world, including by signing the TRIPS waiver, the virus is going to continue to evolve, and variants are going to continue to plague the world, including our country of Canada. This motion asks us to give up the hope that we will get through this pandemic. This motion asks us to give up our fight against this virus. It asks us to surrender. It asks us to ignore public health and science. It asks us to pretend to know better than scientists. Canadians are better than this. We care about science. We are not about to surrender at the end. We are going to continue to care for one another.

1321 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Mar/24/22 12:03:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct some of the facts for my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona. Could the member deny how happy Albertans are now, since some, or even most, of the restrictions have been lifted, and how relieved families are at all levels that life is going back to normal? I am sure the member is receiving as many emails as I am about how happy people are about their lives going back to normal. I am not sure if the member's speech reflects the reality of Edmontonians and Albertans with respect to this situation and the lifting of restrictions. I hope the member will take this opportunity to correct the fact that Albertans and Edmontonians are happy, and everybody wants out of the pandemic.

131 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson

Mar/24/22 12:04:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. We often see eye to eye as neighbours and members of Parliament for the wonderful city of Edmonton, but I have to say that my perception of where my constituents are on this is very different from what the member brought forward. I am getting many emails from people who are deeply worried about those who cannot receive a vaccination, such as children. I am hearing from teachers who are absolutely terrified to be back in classrooms that have not dealt with the ventilation problems that we have had so far and that have not dealt with overcrowding. I am talking to health care workers who are exhausted. They are on their last straw, and hearing that the Government of Alberta does not care enough about them to maintain some of these restrictions that will keep them safe is heartbreaking. I am hearing about seniors who are worried about their own care.

164 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 12:05:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for her passionate speech today, and for always standing up for people who are vulnerable and for people who need a voice in this space. She is always there for them. Today, I would like to respond a little to the notion that our job in the House might be to do what is always popular. I think we have an obligation to do what is prudent and to do what is responsible. We were elected to make decisions based on good facts, evidence and science, and we have done our best over the course of the last two years. Obviously, in retrospect, people make mistakes, but hindsight is always 20/20. I would ask my hon. colleague this. In looking across the country at various jurisdictions, who are we here to protect?

143 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Mar/24/22 12:06:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I also feel that we have, as a Parliament, tried to work together for the betterment of Canada and for Canadians. It is not always easy decisions that parliamentarians are asked to make. Our constituents did not send us here to have the honour of representing them in this place to do cheerleading for them or to do the popular things. We are here to make the difficult decisions, and there are things that we could have done much better. A perfect example of that is the Canadian access to medicines regime, CAMR, which I talked about earlier. We could put those medicines, those therapeutics and vaccination medicines on that list, but we have not done that yet. The Canadian government has the opportunity and could do it today. That would be one way that we could work together.

144 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Mar/24/22 12:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. In debates about the pandemic, it has often been said that the challenge for public health policy has been to ensure that people are willing to comply throughout the pandemic. Does my colleague not think that if the government came up with a plan to ease these restrictions, this would provide some degree of predictability and encourage compliance?

68 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Mar/24/22 12:07:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think that a plan is very important. Canadians deserve to have answers and they deserve to get information, but in my mind what that might look like is a plan to actually review the mandates: to look at them and see which ones can be lifted and at what point. To have that research into that piece is really important. However, it cannot be a decision that is based on what the member wants or what I want, but rather on what scientists and medical professionals tell us. I would very quickly add that it is very important that our health care system is strengthened, which is another thing that I think all of us in the House should be fighting for.

125 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/24/22 12:08:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the third year of this pandemic, Canadians are feeling exhausted, frustrated and anxious about the future. Instead of divisive political pandering, they deserve honest answers and responsible leadership from their elected officials. Far from feeling this pandemic is over, Canadians are deeply concerned about what is coming next. People are worried about the emergence of new variants and the potential that COVID-19 will be circulating for years to come. However, after two years and many flawed and changing public health measures, New Democrats believe that Canada is due for a re-evaluation of our public health strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why New Democrats are taking a responsible and science-based approach, calling for a review of all federal public health measures that is transparent, data-driven and informed by the advice of public health experts. New Democrats believe the prompt completion of this review is in the public interest and should proceed without political interference. That is why, last week, we wrote to Canada's chief medical officer and requested that the Public Health Agency of Canada conduct a thorough review of every federal COVID-19 health policy based on data and science, with a goal of either confirming that we are on the right path or making changes if we are not. Unfortunately, the motion introduced by the Conservative opposition today is the opposite of this approach. By calling for an immediate end to all federal vaccine mandates, the Conservative motion is premature and politicizes a decision that should be based on science. Wedge politics and polarization are not going to end this pandemic. Rather than reckless declarations from the floor of the House of Commons, New Democrats believe that we must take a cautious and informed approach to protect public health until the COVID-19 pandemic is over. This motion before the House violates these principles and this approach in a number of ways. First, it is premature and a threat to public health. This motion assumes, incorrectly, that we are done with the pandemic. It assumes, without scientific basis, that we have entered the endemic phase. This is something no responsible science has declared. It ignores what is happening in countries around the world, especially those that have relaxed their public health measures too quickly. Second, it is politically motivated. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have played partisan politics with the pandemic over the past two years. That has been irresponsible and dangerous. I can do no better than to quote a Liberal member of the government: the MP for Louis-Hébert. He stated: I can’t help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve and during the last election campaign. From a positive and unifying approach, a decision was made to wedge, to divide and to stigmatize. He added: I fear that this politicization of the pandemic risks undermining the public’s trust in our public health institutions. He was right. Politicians should not be deciding public health measures; health professionals should. Public health decisions should be based on data, evidence and science, and not on political considerations. This motion reflects the Conservative Party playing the very same game. Third, it is precise yet overly broad. This motion calls for the immediate lifting of all vaccine mandates, yet there are very different mandates with different purposes and impacts. For example, there is a clear difference between requiring vaccination for a federal health professional who visits a remote indigenous community to treat vulnerable seniors with compromised immune systems and for an Ottawa bureaucrat who works from home, yet this motion makes no distinction whatsoever and would immediately remove both. There are different considerations when we consider passengers on an airplane sitting inches apart in a closed environment for many hours, than for those on a bus where people may be able to physically distance. Some mandate aspects might indeed be properly removed, yet it may be prudent to retain or perhaps alter others. This motion precludes that approach. Fourth, it is factually incorrect and misleading. The motion erroneously claims that all provinces have lifted or have plans to lift their vaccine mandates. What is correct is that all provinces have lifted their proof of vaccination requirements for people attending certain social and recreational settings and events, except for British Columbia. The requirement will be lifted there on April 8. In British Columbia, mandatory vaccination policies remain in place for workers in health care, long-term care and public service. New Brunswick has dropped its COVID-19 vaccination mandate for most employees, except for those who work in health care and other vulnerable sectors. The Government of Nova Scotia has indicated that higher-risk areas in the front lines of health care and long-term care will still require COVID-19 vaccinations when the mandates in other sectors are lifted in the province. When the motion claims that Canada has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, it is referring only to a two-shot vaccine series and ignores the third booster vaccination figures. While it is correct that the two-jab rates are in the 82% range, still leaving almost 20% without full vaccination, incidentally, that rate drops to less than half of Canadians, 46%, with booster shots. This motion misrepresents the vulnerability of Canadians and risks their health in doing so. We know that vaccination continues to be the best course of action to protect Canadians from serious illness, hospitalization and death. According to Canada's chief public health officer: ...with the Omicron variant, having two doses—the protection against infection and further transmission goes really low. You really need a third dose to provide augmentation against transmission. All that should be taken into account as the federal government looks at the policies going forward. In addition, we need to study the impact of infection-acquired immunity, transmission dynamics and the viability of future treatments. We also know that this virus knows no borders and what happens elsewhere is certain to affect us in Canada, so let us look at the current state of COVID-19 cases globally. After a consistent decrease since the end of January, the number of new weekly COVID-19 cases globally has now increased for a second consecutive week, with a 7% increase reported from March 14 to March 20 as compared to the previous week. According to the World Health Organization, a combination of factors is causing the spike, including the highly transmissible omicron variant and its BA.2 subvariant, as well as the lifting of public health and social measures. The emergence of the BA.2 subvariant has led to a steep rise of cases in the U.K., Germany, Finland, Switzerland and other European countries in recent weeks. Hong Kong is now reporting the world's highest death rates from COVID-19. China is also seeing major outbreaks in major cities, putting millions of people under lockdown and halting production in major international manufacturing centres, providing grave implications for supply chains. South Korea recently set a new daily record, with reported infections topping 600,000. Australia and New Zealand, which had previously held cases to low levels, have also seen spikes in recent weeks, as have Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Here in Canada, a spike in early surveillance signals across the country has experts worried we could be on the verge of another resurgence. While BA.2 does not appear to be associated with more severe illness in vaccinated populations, it is still capable of causing severe disease among people without prior immunity, which underscores the importance of getting up to date with COVID-19 vaccines, including a booster. What do respected health experts say as opposed to Conservative politicians? The WHO director said this: There are different scenarios for how the pandemic could play out, and how the acute phase could end—but it is dangerous to assume that Omicron will be the last variant, or that we are in the endgame. On the contrary, globally the conditions are ideal for more variants to emerge. Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease physician at Toronto General Hospital and member of Ontario's COVID-19 vaccine task force, said this: Even though we're in a much better place now than we were one and two months ago, there's still a lot of COVID around and there's still a lot of people in hospital with COVID.... Sadly, this is not over yet. Finally, Dr. Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of viral pathogenesis at the University of Manitoba and Canada research chair of emerging viruses, stated: Watching what's going on in terms of case numbers in Europe, I think should be certainly a bit of a stark reminder that the virus has not disappeared.... BA.2 should, in my mind, kind of reinvigorate us to realize we're not through with this yet and in fact the virus can still change. The NDP is fully committed to reviewing all federal vaccine mandates and restrictions, as I said earlier, so we would propose that we amend the motion in the following way. I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “has lifted or” and substitute the following: “is planning to lift vaccine mandates, the House call on the Public Health Agency of Canada to conduct a comprehensive review of all federal vaccine mandates and restrictions based on the most recent data and best available evidence to determine whether such mandates should remain, be lifted or be altered and request that this review be tabled in the House within four weeks following the adoption of this motion.” By accepting this amendment, we can put this decision in the hands of those it should be, those of scientists, based on data, based on evidence and for the protection and best health of Canadians.

1673 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Mar/24/22 12:18:34 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes if he consents to this amendment being moved.

52 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Mar/24/22 12:19:14 p.m.
Watch

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

14 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett

Mar/24/22 12:19:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we reject the amendment from the government member.

10 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/24/22 12:19:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure it was not the intention of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to mislead the House by suggesting that the member for Vancouver Kingsway is a member of the government. That is obviously not true. I wonder if he might want to correct the record.

63 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Mar/24/22 12:19:28 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for that clarification. The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

14 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Mar/24/22 12:19:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of talk in the debate about science and how we need to follow the science. I just want to let people know that I am a chemical engineer. I did work in science and research, so I do have some understanding of the issue. One of the facts that I want to talk about is how the 90% of people who are vaccinated in Canada can get and transmit COVID-19. We know this. The Prime Minister has had it. I have had it twice, and a lot of people in the House have had it. These 90% are able to go back and forth across the border easily and get on a plane and take their masks off while they are eating lunch, etc. However, the 10% who are not vaccinated can also get and transmit COVID, but they are not allowed to go anywhere. As the World Health Organization has pointed out, this is accomplishing nothing other than violating the charter rights of these individuals. Would the member agree that this would be one measure we could drop today without any adverse impact?

191 words

Mr. Don Davies

Mar/24/22 12:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a person interested in science, I am sure my hon. colleague is also interested in the accuracy of numbers. It is not 90% of Canadians who are vaccinated. It is 81.6%. Of course, as I pointed out in my speech, only 46% of Canadians have had their third booster, which, in my view, now ought to be considered required to be considered fully vaccinated. We know, based on the science, that the impact of vaccinations wanes over time. After three, four or five months, we know that the efficacy of the vaccine, particularly the mRNA vaccines, can go down to very low numbers, so getting that third booster is incredibly important. I would just say that federal policy should be to encourage people to be vaccinated and to do everything possible to ensure that all Canadians receive their third boosters. Relaxing and withdrawing mandates, in that respect, at this time, I think, is not only irresponsible but harmful to the health of Canadians.

167 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/24/22 12:21:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair. As you would know and no doubt attest, with regard to the province of Quebec, toward the end of November or beginning of December, no one would have anticipated that the province of Quebec would have been implementing a curfew in the month of January because of omicron. I think it is really important that we do not lose sight of the fact that we cannot just wish the pandemic away. There is a responsibility. Things can change and, as we have seen with the omicron variant, they can change quite quickly and rapidly. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we listen to what health care experts have to say.

134 words

Mr. Don Davies

Mar/24/22 12:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. There is really a number of fundamental flaws in this motion before the House today. Again, it assumes that politicians should be making public health policy. I personally do not agree with that. The Conservatives seem to think that should be the case. Second of all, I believe that the decision should be data-driven and it should be accurate. Again, this motion, as I have pointed out, suffers from a number of inaccuracies, if not outright mistakes. Finally, I would say that we have been through this before, where we get a temporary lull because of the public health measures and we get case counts coming down, so we prematurely move to relax public health measures. What have we seen? We see a flare-up again. I believe in the prudent, precautionary approach. I personally believe we should be moving very carefully and cautiously for the health of Canadians.

155 words

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

Mar/24/22 12:23:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your excellent work. I think that the pandemic has shown how fragile the health care system is in Quebec and across Canada. We know that seniors in long-term care homes were hard hit. It was hard to find people to work in those facilities. There was not enough money. Now that my colleague is in power or on the government's side, I would like to know whether he will acquiesce as soon as possible to the call of Quebec and every province in Canada to increase health transfers from 22% to 35% so that the same tragedies we experienced in Quebec and across Canada will not happen again during a future pandemic.

120 words

Mr. Don Davies

Mar/24/22 12:24:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Quebeckers are so grateful to the NDP for working co-operatively with the Liberals in the 1960s to bring them public, universal, comprehensive health care, which he clearly supports because he wants more money for it. That is because the NDP, unlike the Bloc Québécois, works constructively and positively in Parliament in order to deliver for Canadians, which is something they do not do. Absolutely, the NDP is the party of health care. We are going to continue to fight for more federal contributions to get the federal government up to its 50% contribution to public health care in this country, as it should be.

115 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Mar/24/22 12:25:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in that chair. I am going to split my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. For two years, Canadians have been living with COVID-19 restrictions. That is two years of lockdowns, of not being able to visit loved ones and of not being able to travel. It is two years of isolation. While Canadians understood the need for various restrictions applied during the pandemic, despite the lack of consistency, despite the mixed messaging and despite the confusion, Canadians have done what was asked of them. However, today what they can no longer be expected to live with is the indefinite nature of these restrictions and timelines and the lack of data. They are noticing that leaders across the country, 10 provinces, are following the evidence and advice from public health officials, evidence that supports ending the mandates. Provincial leaders have lifted or have plans to lift mandates in their provinces. The only government in Canada that has no plan to lift restrictions is this one. I am sure that members opposite will argue that their compulsion for continued mandates is somehow justified by public health officials, but Canada's own top doctor says that the omicron variant is a game-changer and that it has forced us to rethink vaccine mandates. Dr. Tam said that we are at a “very important juncture” and that COVID-19 policies need to shift from “an emphasis on requirements to recommendations.” That is the government's own adviser. The government's own adviser says that federal vaccine mandates are under review now, because the science tells us the COVID-19 vaccine, or at least the first two doses, offers very little protection against the transmission of the variant. Advice once valued by the government is now suddenly ignored in an attempt to drive division and dehumanize those who do not agree, doubling down on a tactic that some members of their own caucus have called out. The travel vaccination mandate has prevented approximately six million Canadians from travel within Canada and it prevents them from flying out of Canada. They cannot travel. They cannot visit family and friends. They cannot take international vacations or even fly across the country. They cannot live ordinary lives. Canada is the only country in the developed world that bans citizens from air travel. If we couple that with Dr. Tam's statements of re-evaluating mandates, one can deduct that the rationale for a ban on air travel is no longer justified. However, the government seems to have a different view, one that suits its political narrative. It may see travel as a luxury, but what about work across federally regulated industries? Let me tell members about one of those industries that is pleading for fairness, common sense and conditions in line with anywhere else in the world today, even with its competitors in our own airports: the air travel industry. The Minister of Transport's mandate for vaccinations, enforced through interim orders, was implemented swiftly across the industry. Despite this being a matter of health and safety, employers developed and implemented mandatory vaccination policies without consultation. The majority of airline workers complied with their employer's policies, while other workers were placed on unpaid leave without benefits or access to medical benefits. The industry fully supported efforts to ensure the safety of workplaces, workers and the public, as did all members of the House. It is important to point out that unvaccinated people are being disproportionately penalized. These workers were required to work during the pandemic. In many cases, they kept going to work during the pandemic, unlike other workers whose workplaces were closed but who were able to continue working from home. These workers flew personal protective equipment to other parts of the world, ensured the supply of basic necessities and even worked under conditions where their health and safety were not protected. In the travel sector, vaccinations ended up being the only tool employers relied on in the fight against COVID‑19, yet there are many tools to achieve the same goal. We know that. We have used them in other industries. We kept each other safe. Most were unimpeded by severe outbreaks, and at a time when employers were experiencing worker shortages, particularly in this industry, they were terminating experienced and seasoned workers. Employers and workers have the equal responsibility to keep workplaces safe, yet the failure to do so results in uneven and disproportionate consequences. For workers, the consequences of the loss of employment of well-paying, unionized jobs, those with benefits and pensions, will impact not just the individual but the entire family. It is unlikely these workers will find other employment that is unionized and stable, which will inevitably impact their family's standard of living. No one should lose their livelihood because of personal beliefs, particularly when alternatives to reach the same goal exist. The government knows that. We think workers who kept the industry flying during the most challenging times of the pandemic deserve better. By creating an end timeline, an end to this interim order, and a path forward, the government can eliminate the need for these employers to terminate the frontline workers we depended upon and celebrated during the height of this pandemic. It could do that today. Cases of the variant are receding in most parts of the country, and advocates for continued mandates are claiming the mantle of science to justify political positions instead of evaluating the scientific findings that have turned up in each one of our provinces and across the globe. Just this week, a member of the House stood and offered masking advice to other members in a contrived attempt to virtue signal superiority, despite the clear rules of this place. These are based, of course, on expert evidence, presumably science, the same science the government is relying on, and which are, it is also worth noting, completely in line with what happens outside the door of this place. That exchange not only suggests a disdain for those who follow the rules the member does not like, it creates an arbitrary standard of opinion masquerading as science. That is exactly what we are hearing today. It is gross. It is purposeful, and in some respects, it speaks to a continued deliberate attack on those who do not share the views of the government. We have seen that. When Canadians see behaviour like that, they lose their confidence in those who are responsible for public health decisions. The trust erodes. It suggests to them that the same disdain displayed for members may extend to people outside of the House. Perhaps it does because, in the absence of any data, benchmarks, timelines and plans to end these mandates, there really is nothing to suggest that continued mandates are not just an opinion of the government. If they are, that is troubling. If they are not not, they require an explanation that has not been shared, other than talking points about science. The intention of the mandates were predicated on increased vaccination rates. We have among the highest in the world. When that narrative is no longer supported because of those high rates, the goal posts move. This week it became about surgical backlogs, which is tragic and most certainly a capacity issue, but is still inexplicable in relation to the continued federal mandate. Then it was simply a shoulder shrug from the Minister of Health, while he stated that COVID is still here. Of course, it is still here. It will always likely be here, but I hope that has not become the benchmark by which to determine when to lift these mandates or drop these restrictions. I hope that is not the case. I hope we are not hearing about COVID zero from the government. It is time to end these unjustified mandates. I hope members of the House realize that public experts, their own public experts, the government's own public experts, have said that it is safe. The provinces have said that it is safe. Public health officials have said it is safe. I hope they agree with the Conservatives and lift the mandates so Canadians can get back to work and get their lives back.

1392 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 45