SoVote

May/19/22 11:42:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling my colleague from Thornhill that I think she is a very dynamic person and that I think highly of her. I hope she will not take offence at the comments I am about to make. On the last Bloc opposition day, my Conservative colleagues talked a lot about the relevance of our motion, which had to do with prayer. They wondered why we had raised that subject at a time when no one was talking about prayer and when, in their opinion, we should have been talking about inflation and gas prices. I am therefore surprised that my Conservative colleagues have not put forward any motions on gas prices or inflation on their last two opposition days. I do not hold it against them, but I would like to do the same for them. I may not talk about the relevance of their motion, but I would like to talk about their intent. What is my Conservative colleagues' intention? What is motivating them today to call on the government to immediately revert to pre‑pandemic rules and service levels for travel? First, I believe that, before we can immediately revert to prepandemic rules, we must necessarily rely on public health guidance. Here, I would like to make a first distinction. On the one hand, there is the science and public health objectives, which involve establishing truths that are sometimes difficult to establish, especially during a pandemic. On the other hand, there is political partisanship or the desire to promote a political ideology, which often involves advancing a political agenda. In my view, the purpose of the motion before us today is to advance the political agenda of the Conservatives rather than really determining whether the public health situation permits a full reopening and the lifting of certain measures. I do not want to hurt the feelings of my Conservative friends, because, after all, I am a caring person. That said, the reason why I am talking about the Conservative political agenda is because I think that there is a phenomenon that is plaguing my Conservatives colleagues, and that is populism. There seems to be a form of populism embedded in Conservative Party rhetoric, and the proof of that is in the favourite topics of the member for Carleton, whom I admire. In the cut and thrust of debate, the member for Carleton is exciting and interesting, and we want to hear him, but, unfortunately, the issues that he brings up often relate to some form of populism. I am thinking of all his speeches about the need to take back control of our lives. I will come back to that later. I do not know what other people are going through, but I for one have not lost control of my life. I may have lost control of my weight, but sooner or later I will be able to get that back under control. However, I have not lost control of my life. I am also thinking of that word “justinflation” that the member for Carleton is always mentioning, and, of course, his rhetoric about freedom. Shouting “freedom” four or five times does not necessarily imply an understanding of that concept. I could refer to some concepts of freedom—

555 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/19/22 11:45:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very much enjoy the speech that is being given, so I regret to interrupt, but the member did refer to a term that, at least in English, you have ruled to be out of order, and that is using the Prime Minister's name in conjunction with the word “inflation”. At least, through the translation, it came across in the way it is regularly used. Perhaps the member could rephrase that.

83 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/19/22 11:46:03 a.m.
Watch

I believe we have already said a few times that that word is not allowed in the House. The hon. member for Jonquière may continue.

27 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/19/22 11:46:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was a judicious intervention. I apologize for offending my colleague. It is an unflattering play on the word inflation and the Prime Minister's name that I feel conveys that populism. Before I go on, I would like to define the word “populism”. Generally speaking, it is a style of politics that divides by attempting to simplify issues and amplify antagonism. It is us versus them. In this particular case, there are travellers on one side and the government on the other. A simplistic interpretation is that the government is preventing travellers from moving freely and that all it has to do is change the rules to solve the problem. That is simplistic because we know this is a public health issue. When we talk about populism, we can also say that we are talking about personalized speech and behaviour that relies on rhetoric that combines utopia and demagoguery. In an ideal world, we are not affected by the pandemic. It does not affect us, and everyone can come and go as they please. If we were to take a demagogic approach, we would say that all of the border crossings can be reopened tomorrow morning, and there will be no problems. Generally, this sort of thing is done to pander to the people and pit them against the elite. The travellers, the people, the truckers, to use a term dear to my colleague from Carleton, have a view of society that is against the elite. That is populism. Populists usually condemn institutions that do not sufficiently consider the public's aspirations. The government and public health do not care about the aspirations of the average person. Populists characterize political opponents as elites who care very little about the ideas of the people and popular common sense. Generally, when it comes to populism, the truth is in popular common sense. That sets the table for a debate which, in my opinion, is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today: the democracy of opinion. Those of us who know a bit about philosophy make that distinction. On the one hand there is opinion and doxa and, on the other, episteme, the sciences. Opinion is based on appearance. You say “it appears to me that,” without having checked the facts. On the other hand, science involves a deeper reflection. I feel that that is what today’s debate is about. Conservatives are saying that it appears that the measures in airports are far too restrictive and that we are further along in the pandemic, but they have not taken care to consult a public health expert. I said that I wanted to help my Conservative colleagues, who are poisoned by populism. I would like to cite Pierre Rosanvallon, an author I particularly like. When he speaks of populism, he says we must beware of the “threefold populist simplification”. I would like to explain what threefold simplification means using my friend and colleague from Carleton. First, according to Pierre Rosanvallon, there is political and sociological simplification, where “the people” is a defined homogeneous subject. Considering the people a defined homogenous subject is the same as saying “Canadians think that”; for example, all Canadians think that we should immediately lift all measures in airports. It defines the people as different from the elite, in other words, from other politicians who think differently, as if the people were a monolith. On the one hand, there are truckers and unvaccinated people and, on the other, a form of elite that is completely disconnected from reality and that is hostile to freedom. There is also, according to Pierre Rosanvallon, procedural and institutional simplification. This involves attacking institutions and politicians who think differently. I will give you an interesting example. My colleagues may have followed the debate between the hon. member for Carleton and Jean Charest. In the debate, my colleague from Carleton said to Jean Charest, “to hear you talk about law and order is a bit rich, given that your party, your [Quebec] Liberal Party, took a half-million dollars of illegal donations when you were the head of that party. The average trucker has more integrity in his pinky finger than you had in your entire...Liberal cabinet.” We can see here that this is a populist discourse that attacks, in a manner of speaking, populist adversaries. Let us take this a bit further, and consider what we heard from the hon. member for Abbotsford, who finds that what our friend from Carleton is doing on cryptocurrency is entirely inconsequential. Moreover, in response to a recent direct attack on institutions by the hon. member for Carleton and his threat to dismiss the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the hon. member for Abbotsford said, “We lose some credibility when we do this. It is fair to ask questions, to demand solutions to the skyrocketing cost of living. But we also have to respect the institutions that have been granted independence to ensure that they function apart from political interference.” Members can then see a dynamic that reflects the lowest form of populism, which can even lead a member to call our colleague from Carleton to order. I will conclude by addressing simplification that arises from populism. The hon. member for Carleton said in the House, “We are going to give Canadians their freedom back and make them the authors of their own stories. That is the approach we will take as Conservatives. Everybody has their story, and the story that I am hearing right now is that people feel like they are losing control of their lives.” In my opinion, this is what is poisoning my Conservative colleagues in today’s debate: They want to make people believe that institutions are preventing them from taking control of their lives, and they are doing it to the detriment of science. It is a very dangerous game.

1004 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

May/19/22 11:53:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, in which he took multiple shots at the concept of populism. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that hundreds of sovereignist voters in Quebec who vote for the Bloc Québécois often ask the same questions as Conservatives on issues like the vaccine mandate and airport management. There are a large number of Bloc supporters on social media who are asking the same questions Conservative voters do. Is asking questions strictly a Conservative trait, or do sovereignists do that too?

101 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/19/22 11:53:53 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's thoughts were poorly expressed. A person can ask questions whether they are a member of the Bloc, a Conservative, a papist or whatever else, but those questions have to be rational. We need to listen to the science. You can please somebody by saying that global warming does not exist and that they can keep burning gas until the end of time and nothing will ever happen to them. I have people asking me about the price of gas, but I think it is important to be honest with them and answer them in a reasonable way. Populists do the opposite and present simple solutions to complex problems. A public health issue like COVID-19 is complex, so we cannot just propose a simple solution like lifting all restrictions. I often hear people calling for an end to the mandates, but that is completely irrational and does not follow the science. That is what I wanted to explain to my colleague.

166 words

Mr. Joël Lightbound (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

May/19/22 11:54:58 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the theme of the opposition motion before us today and ask my colleague a more philosophical question. In his opinion, from a scientific perspective, where does the burden of proof fall with regard to the effectiveness of public health measures? Does it fall on the government, who imposes those measures, or on those who challenge them? Does he think the burden of proof has been met?

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

May/19/22 11:55:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that we need to listen to science, but pandemic science is not a monolith. There is not one united opinion and many experts disagree. It is up to the government to sift through the opinions, but it is certainly not required to base its decisions solely on the rumblings of some people who feel that their freedom is being violated by the restrictions on travel and on how we live our lives. We need to listen to what scientists are telling us. Not too long ago, people were told that smoking was good for their health; cigarettes were associated with sports. We need to keep listening to science, because if we only listen to our first instincts then our society would be more or less unsustainable.

130 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/19/22 11:56:23 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member for Jonquière agrees that to move away from populism and to unify Canadians, it is better to employ Canadians. Is it better to create and implement a plan to hire more screening officers to reduce wait times?

45 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

May/19/22 11:56:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing the evidence does show is that we need to increase screening measures. I agree with my colleague that all members in the House need to do some soul-searching and move away from populism, which is eating away at our democracy and plays too big of a role in our debates. I think that is the best short-term solution.

64 words

All Topics

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

May/19/22 11:57:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech on populism was very interesting, but I want to talk about what was happening, for example, this weekend in Montreal and at the airport. It is hard for constituents to understand. When they go to the airport and realize they need a mask, they have to go back to get a mask, and then they go through all these checks that they do not normally have to go through. How does the member explain to his constituents why, when they are outside of the airport, they do not need a mask, because the Quebec government says it is safe, but inside the airport they do?

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

May/19/22 11:57:49 a.m.
Watch

What a mind-boggling question, Mr. Speaker. What does this mean? Does it mean that every restriction that people do not understand must be lifted? If someone wants to drive at 200 kilometres per hour because they think that they are a good driver, should we remove speed limits because this person does not understand that there are restrictions in society? I cannot believe that question.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/19/22 11:58:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Vancouver Kingsway this morning. It is a pleasure to rise and speak about the situation in our major airports, a situation that I think by now pretty much every Canadian across the country is familiar with. It is a situation that is chaotic, and it is a situation that is having real impacts on a lot of people. For over two years, Canadians were asked to put off travel plans. They could not visit family members; they missed major life events; they had to cancel long-awaited holidays; they could not travel to other parts of Canada or other parts of the world. People made significant sacrifices to protect each other, to protect their loved ones and to protect their communities. They helped buy time for frontline health workers before we had vaccines, and they kept it up when new variants emerged and threatened to derail our collective efforts. The vast majority of Canadians did their part, and for that they deserve our thanks. With many restrictions now lifted, people are excited to travel again, which is understandable, and they are returning to our airports in huge numbers. Last week, an average of 120,000 travellers went through our major airports each day. That is a huge number, but once at the airports, they are being stuck in long screening lines. Planes are stuck on the tarmac without passengers able to leave. People are missing flights, and much more. Of course, people are rightly frustrated by this situation. These delays are creating stress and anxiety for travellers and they need to be addressed. This situation was foreseeable. It has been going on for weeks and the government needs to fix it. Why is this happening? As we heard at the transport committee from the Canadian Airports Council, the biggest factor is staffing, especially the lack of screening personnel needed to move passengers through security. Screening capacity is a federal responsibility through the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA. Like many sectors of our economy, aspects of the air transport sector have struggled to rehire employees laid off earlier in the pandemic, and we have heard about that challenge in today's debate already. As the hospitality industry has experienced, some staff simply are not available to hire back because they have moved on to other positions with better work conditions, better compensation and better terms of employment. The minister needs to ensure that the terms of employment related to these positions, the positions at our airports that are needed to screen passengers, are adequate to attract and retain the skilled workforce that we need to ensure safe air travel for all those who fly. The other issue, of course, is the fact that the pandemic is still very much with us, and it is hard to maintain staffing levels when employees are catching COVID and leaving work because they are sick. The government should have been able to predict that these challenges would emerge. It should have hired sufficient staff, and if it struggled to find people to do the work, it should have reviewed the terms of those positions to ensure that they are competitive and able to attract and retain the people it needs. The Liberal government first announced it was relaxing travel restrictions on February 15, with mandatory arrival testing and quarantine scrapped at the end of February. Liberals were happy to go around saying how exciting it was that travel was back and Canada was reopening in time for the tourism season, but over three months have passed since those announcements, and it is clear that the government has not done enough to ensure that our airports are ready. Now Canadians are facing the consequences of the government's mismanagement and lack of preparedness. This was entirely avoidable. It should have been anticipated and it needs to be fixed. We have seen the same mishandling from the government with passport applications. I am sure everyone in the House has heard from constituents who are facing incredibly lengthy delays and long lines at Service Canada offices because the government failed to anticipate an increase in demand for travel when the restrictions were relaxed. The same folks who were left scrambling to get their passports on time a few weeks ago are now at the airport experiencing long lines at security screening. They are frustrated and anxious because of the delays they are seeing. Instead of acknowledging the government’s failure to prepare, the transport minister had the audacity to blame the travellers themselves, saying that it was their lack of practice and the slowness with which they took the liquids out of their bags that were leading to these long delays at the airport. Frankly, that is offensive. Shifting to the riding I represent, I am particularly mindful of tourism operators in northwest B.C. and across Canada, who have looked forward to a season of welcoming back clientele from across Canada and around the world. I think of operators in the Bulkley Valley, the Bella Coola Valley, Haida Gwaii and Prince Rupert. They are looking forward to finally getting their business back, and the last thing they need is their clients hearing that travelling to Canada is a hassle because of the delays at our airports. That is going to hurt the tourism business right across Canada, and it needs to be addressed. The Conservatives have brought this forward because they see a very particular opportunity in this crisis, which is the opportunity to once again try their hand at removing every health measure, every restriction and every tool we have to protect Canadians and safeguard our country against future waves of the virus. We disagree with that approach. We disagree because the pandemic is still very much with us and because there are some public health measures, we believe, that are likely still advisable for the ongoing protection of Canadians and the detection of the virus at our border. Most of all, we disagree because we believe important public health measures should be informed by public health science, not by politics. The motion before us makes the claim that Canada’s international allies are removing all travel restrictions. Simply put, that is not the case. Just to the south of us, the United States still requires a predeparture COVID test. That is more restrictive than here in Canada. Almost every country requires proof of vaccination to enter. Saying that our international allies are lifting all restrictions is simply not accurate. We have an opportunity to strike a balance between enabling the mobility of Canadians and keeping in place tools that allow us to respond to future public health threats. The question is, do the current pandemic travel measures strike the right balance? Are they defensible? Are they based on the best available evidence? How are they better than other, similar measures that have been proposed as alternatives? This is where the blame goes back to the Liberal government, which has been less than forthcoming of late when it comes to these pandemic measures. In fact, the NDP wrote to Dr. Tam in March and called on her to conduct a full re-evaluation of Canada’s pandemic measures and report back to Canadians. The letter from the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Elmwood—Transcona simply highlighted that creating trust in public health measures requires explaining the arguments and sharing the evidence on which they are based. I have asked questions on this topic in this very debate today. I have asked the government to tell us when it will be reporting back from its review and how that information will be shared with Canadians, yet we do not get a response. The questions are growing. Just last week, infectious disease expert Dr. Zain Chagla from McMaster University published an article stating that, in his view, Canada’s “current rules for travel do not make sense”. A few days ago, a Globe and Mail editorial asked whether the measures in place are still needed. The government needs to be more transparent with Canadians about the evidence behind any remaining public health measures. It needs to clearly communicate the data and the science informing these decisions. The government needs to stand up and answer. The truth is that it has become less transparent and less forthcoming precisely at a time in the pandemic when the public needs answers more than ever. It was not always this way. We remember the beginning of the pandemic, when Canadians received in-depth explanations of every measure and the evidence justifying it. The result was high public trust, high compliance with restrictions and guidelines, and a sense that we were all pulling in the same direction. The situation at the airports is frustrating. People who are having their travel plans cancelled are under extreme stress. The government should have seen this coming and it should have fixed it. We need more answers and more transparency from the Liberal government.

1527 words

All Topics

Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

May/19/22 12:08:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague was dissatisfied with my response to his previous question about reviewing public health measures at airports. I would like to clarify that a review of measures is ongoing and constant. Health Canada is always reassessing the latest public health data to better dictate our decision-making at airports. There is no completion date, as this is ongoing. It will also likely vary depending upon the scientific measure: vaccine mandates, masking, random testing, etc. What would my colleague do differently? Would he set an arbitrary date for when measures should be lifted, or should it be as soon as possible as new data is assessed?

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

May/19/22 12:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a review that has no terms of reference, no scope identified, no timeline and no date on which the results will be reported back to the public really is not a review at all. To say that things are constantly being reviewed really undermines the whole concept of having something called a “review”, which most Canadians understand to be a process that has a start and finish and a process through which results are communicated. The parliamentary secretary said some things that I do agree with, one of which is that we need this to be based on science, but we need the government to be instilling public trust by providing answers to the basic questions. These are reasonable questions that, in fact, public health experts themselves are asking, and Canadians deserve answers.

137 words

All Topics

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

May/19/22 12:10:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for many things, the member and I have some agreement on. He talked about foreseeable and anticipated aspects of things, and he is right. Being proactive is one thing the government has failed to do. One of the comments the member made was that, unfortunately, people who were in line three weeks ago for their passports have not gotten them. They are not even in line at airports at this point in time. The member also talked a bit about evidence and science, which are very important and are in my background. Ultimately, my question for him, because I have not gotten a clear answer from him, is this. Does he not feel that evidence and science should be presented to Canadians today and that a plan based on them should be put forward to Canadians today?

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

May/19/22 12:11:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not an infectious diseases expert, and many of us in this place are not, so I will go back to the basic principle that the government has a responsibility to communicate the basic rationale for the measures that it puts in place in a way that Canadians understand. It should also respond to the independent public health experts, who have asked very rational and important questions. That is how we build public trust at a time when we need it more than ever. The reality is that unfortunately at this juncture in the pandemic, public trust is at a very low level. We need to correct that and we do that through transparency and communication.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/19/22 12:11:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since I have been in the House, I have often seen the Conservatives add something to the wording of their motion that makes it so that that only they will vote in favour of it, since it includes inaccurate information. It says here that, “Canada's international allies have moved to lift COVID-19 restrictions”, when one of the worst infection hot spots on the planet has been our neighbour to the south, with whom we share one of the longest borders in the world and who has not lifted restrictions at all. I would like to hear my colleague's comments about that being added to the motion when the Conservatives are looking for everyone's support.

123 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

May/19/22 12:12:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Montcalm, makes a great point. It is one that I made earlier today, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. To the premise of his question, the idea that there are things in the motion that are unsupportable simply because they are inaccurate and false is really a challenge. We have three opposition parties on this side of the House that I think agree on many aspects of this debate. If we had gotten together, established where that agreement lies and put forward a motion that really holds the government to account and calls for things that are rational, defensible and evidence-based, we could have made some real progress. It is sad that this is not the case.

125 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

May/19/22 12:13:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise in the House to speak to important issues of the day, not only on behalf of the great people of Vancouver Kingsway, but on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I want to start with an observation. As health critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada, I have had a front-row seat to the issues, unfortunately, since the beginning of this pandemic, having sat on the health committee way back in 2019 to 2020 when COVID-19 first emerged. One thing I can say for sure over the last two-and-a-half years of policy for COVID-19 is that Canadians are never well served when any political party plays politics with the pandemic. I think we have seen that practised by the government at various times. In fact, government members themselves have publicly stated that their own government has sought to use the pandemic and abuse the pandemic for partisan political purposes. I think we see it here today. Any time that politicians prey on frustration, ignore science and data, use partial facts or misleading statements and practise poor public health policy, Canadians are not well served. I regret to say to the House today that this motion really has all of that. As my great colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley just stated, this motion does contain some things that are true, but unfortunately it also contains some statements and conclusions that are dangerously false. It is interesting to me that this motion was introduced by the Conservative transport critic, not the health critic. As the underlying issue here is public health policy and the pandemic, that speaks volumes about the motivation behind this, because the motion ignores fundamental truths and facts from the health world and attempts to exploit the frustration of travellers to result in what would be an incredibly ill-advised health policy decision. I want to start with some things I agree with. I agree that the vaccine mandate ought to be questioned and replaced if it proves ineffective. There is growing and significant evidence that there is little impact of vaccination on the ability to transmit the virus, at least post-omicron. It is also the case that Canadian public policy has failed and continues to fail to recognize infection-acquired immunity. There is overwhelming evidence that infection-acquired immunity is real. There is substantial evidence that it is as strong and durable as immunity achieved from vaccination, and perhaps even more so. Countries such as Austria have recognized this for many months. Citizens in that country can access public facilities and services by proving they are vaccinated, as we require in Canada, but if they can produce serology tests that prove they have been exposed to COVID and recovered, that is accepted as well, because it is basic vaccinology 101 that no matter how we recover from an infection and how our bodies produce antibodies, it has the same result. Those two facts suggest that disallowing unvaccinated Canadians, particularly those who have been exposed to COVID and recovered from travelling, may not be science-based any longer. That, to me, should be explored and changed based on data and evidence. In fact, I have spoken to many constituents, as recently as last night, who question the vaccine mandate policy today in light of the mounting evidence. Unfortunately, that is not what this motion before us states. It goes far beyond that to indefensible and unsafe areas. It wants us to agree that we should revert to all prepandemic rules. The motion says: the House call on the government to immediately revert to pre-pandemic rules and service levels for travel. That is completely irresponsible and belied by the science. For example, requiring foreign travellers arriving in Canada to be vaccinated is absolutely still necessary for one major reason, among others: to protect our strained health care system so that travellers do not get sick and clog up our ICUs. It is still the case, as we know, that being vaccinated significantly reduces one's chance of becoming seriously ill or dying. Here is another example. Mask mandates are probably the single most effective measure we have for helping to reduce the spread of airborne viruses. This is especially the case in crowded indoor places, where physical distancing is not possible. I would venture to say that airplane cabins are, perhaps, the quintessential example of this, yet this motion introduced by the Conservatives states we should have no rules in this regard. Every single expert who has appeared at HESA and been questioned on this issue has agreed that we need to maintain masks as a precaution. Not a single one has said it is wise or time to abandon them, yet the motion and the Conservatives ignore this fact. It is only common sense. We know COVID is spread in aerosolized fashion as a respiratory illness. It is well established that masks help to stop the spread of such viruses. It is no surprise that the Conservatives would ignore that fact, as they continue to refuse every day, and in fact today, to wear masks in the House, a crowded indoor place, despite public health advice to do so— An hon. member: Why aren't you speaking with one? Mr. Don Davies: Madam Speaker, someone asked why I am not wearing one. We take masks off when we speak, and they know that. It is for the interpreters. The Conservatives understand that, but the fact that they would heckle on that point shows how bereft of rationality and evidence they really are. Again, this motion calls for the policy to immediately revert to prepandemic rules. That assumes things have returned to normal. Like every Canadian, I wish that were so, but it is not. This motion presumes to refer to experts, but not one epidemiologist or public health expert has testified at the health committee that we are in an endemic phase. The Conservatives know that or they should know that. I predict there is a high probability we will see a resurgence, perhaps a seventh wave, in the fall. Why? It is because nothing has changed. The virus is still present, mutations are occurring, the omicron BA.2 variant is still in circulation and there is detection of others, including something called the “deltacron” variant. Vaccination in the developing world is still shamefully behind. We know vaccine efficacy wanes, and it does not prevent infection. Sloppy habits, like the Conservatives refusing to wear masks in crowded indoor rooms like this one, help contribute to the spread of airborne respiratory illnesses. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I hear the Conservatives laughing at that. Maybe they should go back to medical school and take a beginner's course in virology. This motion also attempts to blame the problems of Canadian airports on public health rules. This fundamentally misunderstands what is happening. The core problem is that there are few flights due to reduced traffic and, more importantly, reduced staffing due to the shortages of workers, especially in security and baggage handling. The causes of this are poor pay, poor hours, shift work and poor working conditions. Airports are having trouble attracting workers back to work because of these things. Did I say that? No. People in the airline industry say that, yet the Conservatives vote against every attempt to improve workers' conditions. They will not raise minimum wages, they oppose better unionization rules, they fight occupational health and safety improvements and they even wanted workers to work until they were 67 years old before they could retire, which would be especially hard on blue collar workers, who find physical work and shift work more difficult as they age. If we want to do something to help workers and get airports flying better, let us get improved conditions for workers in every airport in this condition. We are never going to get that from the Conservatives, but we will get that from New Democrats.

1354 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 75