SoVote

Mar/24/22 4:15:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to say the member's riding is just as wonderful and beautiful as mine from a tourism perspective, but mine is the number one tourism destination in all of Canada. Let us not forget that. I would like to reiterate that the government has taken vaccines from that COVAX program, and that is something that is abhorrent. What we need to be doing is supporting those countries in order to prevent variants from coming forward again, so people can get vaccinated and so we can prevent the spread of COVID-19. What the government did was deny that from happening. That is my response to that question.

112 words

All Topics

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

Mar/24/22 4:16:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the motion, the Conservative Party is saying it wants to stop the mandates completely, as in it would have no mandates effective today. Can the member tell the House whether he believes that the political science the Conservative Party is using by making that statement is right and fair in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians?

62 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli

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

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

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

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

Mar/24/22 4:27:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated by the hour. NATO's refusal to provide a safe humanitarian no-fly zone has weighed heavily on me and my constituents. The news is inundated with images of young women and children at border crossings in Poland as they flee the tyranny of Herr Putin. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has issued a class-based national interest exemption to allow unvaccinated Ukrainians to enter Canada, and I commend him highly for this. However, does it not seem hypocritical in light of the debate we are having here today? Would it not make more sense to listen to the science and end the mandates so that everyone could travel freely?

120 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/24/22 4:28:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, the opposition is simplifying things. There are very few absolutes in anything, whether it be environmental protection or public health. We work with a risk management approach. That is what governments have been doing all along. We cannot just have blanket statements or blanket policies that overlook certain exceptions that have merit. I am sure that for anyone coming over here from the crisis overseas, there will be public health officers helping them along the way. I do not think we can just paint everything with one brush. We have to be a little more nuanced than that.

101 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/24/22 4:28:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my riding, Shefford, I attend the meetings of an economic and strategic watch committee established by the Haute-Yamaska RCM that brings together players from the economic and tourism sectors, as well as municipal elected officials and Quebec MNAs. Everyone agrees on one thing. We need predictability to keep many sectors of our economy going, including tourism, which is so important to the riding of Shefford. It is therefore a cautious yes, as Quebec and the other provinces are saying. The federal government, however, has no timeline and no predictability when it comes to reopening measures, even though that would help us plan for next steps and ensure a better recovery. It is important that the federal government act within a specific timeframe to be able to clarify all this.

133 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/24/22 4:29:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the biggest obstacle in the tourism sector, in my opinion, was the pre-arrival test needed to enter Canada. Now that those tests will no longer be required as of April 1, I think that will mean fewer barriers to tourism, especially within Canada. I am sure there are many Canadians who would like to visit my colleague's beautiful region. What I heard from my constituents, however, was that they were more concerned about the required tests that were so expensive.

85 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/24/22 4:30:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his amazing work chairing our environment and sustainable development committee. I would like to ask the hon. member about his government's decision not to support the TRIPS waiver. We know that vaccination is key around the world to keeping people in low-income countries safe but also to keeping people here in Canada safe. I am curious if the member agrees that we need to temporarily waive intellectual property rights so that low-income countries could produce vaccines and save lives.

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/24/22 4:31:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. As someone said, we will not be safe until everyone in the world is safe. I am not particularly ideological about how we ensure that everyone is vaccinated. Whatever approach is most efficient in terms of getting the rest of the world vaccinated is the one we should go with. Intellectual property is, of course, a very complex field. We want to ensure that whatever measures we take actually result, at the end of day, in greater production and greater distribution of the vaccines.

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Mar/24/22 4:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try to make my question as short as possible, but I have to throw something else in first. It is my granddaughter Sara's seventh birthday today, and I want to wish her a happy birthday from the House of Commons. I hope she is watching at home. I do not know if she is. I wonder if my hon. colleague could tell the House how we compare to the rest of the G7 countries when it comes to vaccinations.

84 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Mar/24/22 4:32:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish a happy birthday to Sara. She is very fortunate to have such a wonderful grandfather, whom I am sure she is extremely proud of. The last time I looked, I think we were second or third in the G20. I know it tends to change over time, but all I know is that we were very much near the top and that is something we as Canadians can be very proud of.

79 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Mar/24/22 4:33:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair again, and I hope you are doing well today. It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on matters. Today we are speaking on the opposition motion of our colleagues in the Conservative Party. Reading directly from the motion, it calls for the lifting of “all federal vaccine mandates”. It offers a few rationales for that point of view. Namely, because the provinces and territories have either put in place a plan to do so or have already done so, the federal government should act accordingly. The issue this ignores entirely is one of jurisdiction. Provinces and territories should continue and will continue to take decisions that are within their jurisdiction based on the local health situation. Of course, public health agencies at a local level will inform that process with their engagement with the chief medical officer of every respective province or territory. That is the system. That is how it works. That is how it should work in a federation. The federal government, for its part, will operate, as I say, in its jurisdiction on the question of mandates and on the advice of the public health experts at the Public Health Agency of Canada. I am not sure if members have noted this for Hansard, but I will. I want to thank public officials at PHAC. Throughout this pandemic, they have stood up in ways that are immeasurable and in ways that history will recognize as a true contribution to Canadian public policy and to an emergency response. Where I want to focus my attention today is not so much on the politics of those questions. I want to take a step back, if I could, and ask a fundamental question. It is a surprise to me that this issue keeps coming up. My colleagues in the Bloc have not raised it, and my colleagues in the NDP have not raised it. They may have raised it when the opportunity posed itself, but they have not made it a motion. They have not decided to devote an entire opposition day to it. My friends in the Conservative Party have, and they continue to devote themselves to this issue. Today's question period, for example, is a case in point. Almost the entire duration of question period was taken up by focusing on this one issue. There are so many other things happening in Canada, and internationally too, that they could have raised, but they kept going back to this. I am not sure why. I have some thoughts on the matter. I think it has everything to do with the fact that, at some point in the history of the Conservative Party, it became a libertarian party. What is at the core of the philosophy of libertarianism? I know I only have a few minutes, but there are a few insights that need to be put on the record. Philosopher Robert Nozick is perhaps the most noted libertarian. He said, “There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more.” I offer that. I am not a Conservative, but I have Conservative friends and frequently they will resort to arguments about individualism. We need to understand a philosophic rationale for libertarianism, which Robert Nozick provides. It is about the individual for him and nothing more. In political terms, we can look to Ronald Reagan, but especially to Margaret Thatcher. The transition in the Conservative Party started modestly in the 1980s but especially continued in the nineties and continues into the modern day, and Margaret Thatcher was absolutely instrumental in that change. She said: ...who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business.... Here is another point of view that emphasizes the individual. It is all about self-reliance. The state's job is to get out of the way. The state can provide for a few basic things such as police, a military and basic taxation. Apart from that, apart from offering this idea of what Nozick called the “night-watchman” state, it is about individuals being left alone to pursue their interests as they see fit. Particularly, as it relates to mandates, when Nozick said, “Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others”, I think that is what provides the Conservatives with so much concern about mandates, that it represents state overreach. It represents the state interfering in the lives of individuals and trampling on their individual rights to pursue their interests as they see fit. It is an interesting idea. Much has been written about libertarianism, but its weakness has become clear during emergencies and crises, particularly public health crises like COVID. So much so that an ardent disciple of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, said that in fact there is “such a thing as society.” There are individuals, yes, but they live and exist within a society, and those individuals have a duty to one another. That is where I think, as a point of departure, we have to begin the discussion on mandates. It is not as if we and those who support the introduction and maintenance of federal vaccine mandates do not recognize the importance of individuals. Of course, we do, as well as individual rights. That philosophy is also core to the Liberal Party of Canada, but mandates in the context of COVID‑19, which is still with us and is global, which is what a pandemic is by definition, are key and they are not forced vaccination. Mandates reflect a public health duty. Mandates have saved thousands of lives. In Canada, taken with vaccinations, mandates have helped to save the lives of no less than 400,000 people according to the estimates of experts. Epidemiologists and other public health experts have put that number forward. In the United States, the number is even higher obviously. Over a million lives were saved there. In Europe, the same sort of narrative follows. Another way to understand the value of mandates is to follow what the philosopher T.M. Scanlon said, “If we can prevent something very bad from happening to someone by making a slight or even moderate sacrifice, it would be wrong not to do so.” Therefore, mandates ask all of us to make a moderate sacrifice. That much is sure. Only the state has the ability to implement such a system, a vaccine mandate system, but that moderate sacrifice is absolutely worth it when we understand that the result of that leads to lives being saved. Our colleague who just spoke cited the very well-known and well-respected commentator on Canadian public affairs, who is also the public health specialist for The Globe and Mail. When André Picard talks about, for instance, the elderly and those who are immunocompromised still facing a heightened risk, even though we see declining rates of hospitalization and infection rates, we have to remain vigilant and the federal government needs to maintain a broad perspective as part of the calculus as to whether or not vaccine mandates still have a place in Canada. As we just heard, it is important for the Public Health Agency of Canada to, among other things, assess the international epidemiology. Of course, COVID‑19 remains a pandemic. For that reason, operating in its area of jurisdiction, understanding the international situation, not just the domestic one, the advice given to the federal government is that vaccine mandates still have a role to play. For the Conservatives, this apparently represents a limitation of individual freedom and state overreach, but it should not. Vaccine mandates are about saving lives and that is a duty that we should all live up to. We are individuals who live in a society. Without adhering to a duty to one another, a collective responsibility, individuals cannot thrive, so what I call for, as a final point here, is to recognize the importance of duty in our politics and not just individualism. I thank you for the opportunity to speak and look forward to questions.

1444 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Mar/24/22 4:42:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I agree with some of what the member talked about with respect to principles, but where we part company is when we discuss the principles underlying libertarianism and individuality. I am going to put the question that I put to the health minister today to him. He talked about the efficacy of mandates when it comes to helping out the whole. Nancy, an indigenous single woman, can work 100% from home. Why is the current government, the NDP-Liberal government, not accommodating her?

103 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Mar/24/22 4:43:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, my colleague's constituent is a public servant. The federal government has engaged with public servants throughout. Accommodations have been given where possible, and it continues to engage on that basis and other bases. I will say that more ought to be done by all governments, at every level, to work with individuals who are still vaccine-hesitant. There is a difference between anti-vaxxers and those who are vaccine-hesitant, and perhaps there needs to be more engagement with individuals who fall into the hesitancy category. The media have a responsibility in that regard, public health experts have a responsibility in that regard, so too do governments. I do not know the individual circumstances of the constituent, but that is what I would put to my colleague.

134 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

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

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

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

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

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

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/24/22 4:47:40 p.m.
Watch

The time is up. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, The Environment; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Government Appointments; the hon. member for Bow River, The Economy.

57 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 45