SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

May/5/22 10:35:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is not speaking to the amendment. She is just spewing verbal graffiti.

17 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

May/5/22 6:40:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week, I asked the Liberals when they would end their cruel travel ban on the Canadians the government has branded as unacceptable. In response, the Minister of Transport completed a Liberal hat trick, with three misleading statements in one answer, a feat only a Liberal could be proud of. His first misleading statement was another attempt to play wedge politics with COVID shots. The Liberal Party desperately wants to import American politics into Canada. The Liberals have won fewer votes than the Conservatives in the last five out of six elections. They know they cannot beat our party, so they try to pretend they are running against a different party with different policies. The minister knows that everyone in this chamber has had at least two COVID shots, and no one in this chamber has spoken against the shots. The minister should apologize for this but he will not. He has swallowed too much of his own hubris. When the Liberals decided to politicize COVID shots, they began to believe their own talking points. They forgot COVID shots are the means to an end, not the end itself. The minister next misled Canadians when he claimed that the Liberals are doing whatever they can to protect Canadians. This is from a government that initially told people not to wear masks because it would increase the chance of eye injuries, and a government that called anyone racist for suggesting the border be closed. Finally, for his third misleading hit, the minister claimed he is just following the science. This is perhaps the most grievous example of disinformation being pushed by the government. The government has been taking the name of science in vain for the last two years. The Liberals intentionally conflate the science behind developing and testing COVID shots with a political policy of banning people from boarding planes and trains. The challenge the government has is that it cannot even get its science right. Prior to dropping most pre-arrival testing for fully inoculated Canadians, there was a requirement to show up with either a recent negative test or, and this is key, a positive test result from the previous 180 days. The Canada Border Services Agency seems to understand that proof of previous infection lowers the risk of transmission. Maybe somebody there could explain it to the Ministry of Transportation. While the courts have found limiting the transmission of COVID allows for reasonable restrictions, the government still must follow the section one test laid out by the court. If the goal is to limit the spread, the government must prove this policy is related to the goal of limiting the spread and not a punitive measure for those who will not comply with the Prime Minister’s dictates, which goes to the heart of the question. Why is the Prime Minister’s test for acceptability whether or not someone has had two COVID shots and not immunity? While COVID shots may be the safest way to achieve an immune response, they are not the only way. After firing people from their jobs, denying them social assistance, and calling them every name in the Liberal handbook, some Canadians still have not gotten the jab. Clearly, no amount of coercion or duress will work. If the Liberals truly and honestly believe their own rhetoric about protecting Canadians, they would move to an immunity-based approach to risk management. That they still have not shifted based on the latest scientific evidence proves they care more about punishing a small minority than protecting the vast majority. I challenge the parliamentary secretary to ignore his department-drafted talking points and honestly tell Canadians how this policy is still reasonable after all we have learned about the science of waning immunity.

632 words

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

May/5/22 6:47:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sadly, the parliamentary secretary did not take me up on my offer to speak honestly and directly with Canadians. Instead, we received talking points, which clearly ignore the challenge the government has in justifying a cruel, inhumane, and blatantly unconstitutional travel ban on Canadians whom the Prime Minister has labelled as unacceptable. The member even managed to make the same misleading claims as the minister. No, the member opposite is not following the science. He is engaged in politics. This ban is clearly unconstitutional because there is a less restrictive policy available. Rather than discriminate on the basis of COVID shot status, the government could follow the science on the basis of immunity. I say “could”, because I doubt they will do something that politically unpopular. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters to the government is protecting its electoral ambitions.

149 words