SoVote

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/19/22 12:23:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member hit the nail on the head. It is pretty clear that he was getting under the skin of the Conservatives, because they could not stop heckling him. He raises a really interesting point in his discussion, and I was thinking about it. When it comes to the Conservatives' approach to vaccines, they have always taken the approach that the vaccine only has to do with them: It is their choice because it only has to do with them. In reality, the science behind vaccines is really about not just the individual, but how a community is affected by individuals making a choice. I am wondering if the member could comment on the importance of vaccines as it relates to communities as a whole and protecting an entire population, as opposed to this just being about an individual.

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies

May/19/22 12:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very poignant and, I think, foundational point, which is that, when we engage in breaking new ground and experiencing something as unprecedented as a global pandemic, it will raise very difficult public policy issues concerning the rights of individuals versus the protection of public health. That is why playing politics with a pandemic is so harmful and dangerous. Seeking to exploit an individual sense of grievance and frustration at the risk of public health absolutely ought to be rejected by any right-thinking person in the House and in Canada. We need to find that balance but, first and foremost, we have to always remember that public health rules are meant to protect the public, and we should only craft them, lift them, remove them or put them into place when the science and data supports that, not when politicians such as the Conservatives try to exploit people's frustrations.

157 words

All Topics

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

May/19/22 12:25:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is pretty clear is that the NDP is parroting the Liberals. They are hand in hand. The member is talking about science, but the health authority where he is from, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, has publicly provided documentation that vaccines do not make any difference as far as a person being able to transmit COVID, and they do not make any difference as far as protecting someone from being able to get COVID. There is no difference. Maybe the member should do research to see what his own health authority says and what Bonnie Henry has also said about transmitting and getting COVID. On this side, we are following the science.

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies

May/19/22 12:26:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the essence of science and research is to listen. If he were listening, my hon. colleague would have heard me quote in my speech research that shows that being vaccinated now appears not to have any significant impact on preventing or transmitting COVID. I said that in my speech. Had he been paying attention, he probably would have caught that. That is why I think it is so vital that we base public policy decisions on science, and on a rational, calm and data-based review of the current evidence. It is only by doing this that we will keep Canadians safe.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/19/22 12:27:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his speech. I serve with him on the Standing Committee on Health, and what he said about the science is absolutely correct. It is clear that vaccination still protects against developing the serious form of the disease, which is why we must protect our health care systems. That is the main thing. However, does he not think that the government should eventually, for the sake of the tourism industry, present a progressive plan to lift the measures, even though we know full well that we are not in the endemic phase since the planet is not vaccinated?

111 words

Mr. Don Davies

May/19/22 12:28:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to also say what a pleasure it is to sit on the health committee with my hon. colleague from Montcalm. I appreciate his contributions there and in the House. I absolutely agree with the need to recognize the horrific impact that COVID has had on the Canadian economy and, in particular, industries such as tourism and hospitality. I get letters about that constantly, and I think we absolutely have to have effective measures that are based on public health and only based on rational data and science. I do agree—

96 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/19/22 12:28:40 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, we have to resume debate. The hon. member for Niagara Falls.

12 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls, CPC)

May/19/22 12:28:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock. It is an honour for me to rise in my place today to speak about a pressing issue facing Canadians and international travellers entering and exiting through Canada's various ports of entry, including airports, land border crossings, bridge border crossings and even CBSA marine reporting sites for small vessels. My hon. colleague from Thornhill has brought forward an excellent and timely motion today, one which I will be fully supporting. Ultimately, it calls on the government “to immediately revert to pre-pandemic rules and service levels for travel.” In short, the Liberal government's outdated COVID-19 protocols at airports and other international ports of entry are causing extreme delays, lineups, bottlenecks and missed connections. Worst of all, they are acting as a disincentive for those wishing to travel to Canada. While the focus of our opposition motion today is on airports, it is very important and relevant that other international ports of entry are mentioned and included as well, because they are all connected in our economic ecosystem. These ports of entry support businesses and economic opportunities in many sectors, including tourism, which is very important in my riding, as we have the city of Niagara Falls and the towns of Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie. My Niagara Falls riding has four international bridge crossings. They are managed by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, respectively. These are the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, the Rainbow Bridge and the Peace Bridge. All have been hit hard by the two-year pandemic, and the federal government has done nothing to support these bridges, despite the heavy hardship of lost traffic due to extended border closures. One of the biggest issues I hear about at our international bridge crossings is that of backlogs and delays being caused by the ArriveCAN app. In an email from March 24, 2022, the general manager of the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority warned local politicians that their analysis showed the continued mandatory use of the ArriveCAN app would result in much longer processing times and lengthy border waits, which would significantly depress cross-border traffic at a time when we were moving into the 2022 summer tourism summer season. Fast forward two months, and here we are. His prediction was right. I raised this issue with the federal government as soon as I could. What did it do to prepare for these border backlogs? It doubled down and decided to spend $25 million more in budget 2022 to continue to support the mandatory use of this application. Along my border community riding, there are also a number of CBSA marine reporting sites for small vessels. They include the Niagara-on-the-Lake Sailing Club, the Smugglers Cove Boat Club, the Greater Niagara Boating Club, Miller's Creek Marina, Bertie Boating Club, and the Buffalo Canoe Club, amongst others. Out of all these sites I just listed, only one is operational. Miller's Creek in the upper Niagara River and Fort Erie is open, but all the other sites are closed. Members can imagine, if someone is boating on the lower Niagara River in Niagara-on-the-Lake, they would have to travel all the way to Port Weller in St. Catharines to report in with CBSA. If they are on the upper Niagara River but closer to Chippawa and Niagara Falls, then they have to travel all the way to Fort Erie and all the way back just to report in with CBSA. This adds many kilometres to a voyage and is a huge waste of time and money for boaters, especially as fuel prices skyrocket to record highs. These closures are a huge issue for local recreational boaters, especially as we approach the May long weekend and enter the summer boating season. We need the government to reopen all sites immediately. There is no time to waste. Tourist businesses in my riding were hit first. They were hit the hardest, and they will take the longest to recover from COVID-19. The effect these failing Liberal policies are having on our boaters will only make recovery take that much longer. Tourist businesses in Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie depend on domestic and international visitors travelling to our communities, spending their time and dollars and enjoying all that Niagara has to offer. The operation of attractions, historic sites, restaurants, wineries, craft breweries, cideries, casinos and many other businesses depend on this visitation. In communities such as Niagara, international visitation is important. While they make up approximately 25% of our total visitor base, these international visitors account for over 50% of the dollars spent in our tourism communities. This spend helps support over 40,000 jobs that are reliant on a strong tourism industry, which we had in Niagara before this pandemic. That is why it is essential we welcome back our international friends, guests and visitors. That starts by giving them a great, quick and efficient experience at our international ports of entry. No one is going to choose Canada as a travel vacation destination if they have to risk waiting hours upon hours in stressful and frustrating lineups at an airport or a border crossing. Economic damage and missed opportunities are already being incurred. As the world reopens from COVID and other countries lift their restrictions, Canada looks to be stuck in the past and out of touch with reality. For example, the European Union and the United States have dropped their mask mandates for passengers on flights and in airports. As countries around the world are reducing red tape and making it easier for citizens to travel again, the Liberals in Ottawa continue to impose their outdated and unjustified mandates, which are leading to longer lines and a slower recovery. As an example, fully vaccinated travellers arriving in Canada are still subjected to random COVID-19 testing, and in some cases, these travellers are not even told they have been selected until they get a surprise automated phone call or email a few days later from Switch Health. This happened to Kathryn and her daughter, two constituents of mine. On May 10, they had an uneventful Nexus border crossing at the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia. They were never informed that they were selected for random testing, nor were they given a random test on their exit from their Nexus inspection. Three days later, they received multiple phone calls and emails from Switch Health warning them to get a day-one random test or else risk contravening a public health order with severe penalties, including fines upwards of tens of thousands of dollars and mandatory quarantine. It seems illogical for people to be told they have to take a random test and then wait for Switch Health to send it to them by courier so they can complete it a few days, if not weeks, later. How is this in the best public health interest of Canadians? Simply put, the incompetence of the government knows no bounds. Many experts have called for the end of these ridiculous requirements. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has called for a step back to improve regulations in order for Canada to become more competitive. The president of the Canadian Airports Council has called for the removal of legacy public health protocols, noting that mandatory testing is leading to bottlenecks and hurting Canada's competitiveness. These requirements are stifling our hard-hit tourism industry and are leading to long delays for Canadians just looking to travel after a long two years of obeying government-induced lockdown measures. All of these terrible travel experiences at our airports and border crossings are hurting Canada's economy, competitiveness and international global reputation as a top tourist destination. Since the world started reopening months ago, Canada has lagged far behind our international tourism destination competitors due to these bad federal government policies. On a scale this large, every port of entry across our country is negatively impacted, and this ripple effect negatively impacts every riding of the House of Commons, especially those, like Niagara Falls, that depend on tourism as a major economic driver. We all benefit from a strong tourism industry, and we all lose when it is weak and chaotic, like it is now. After two long years of government shutdowns, lockdowns, border closures and stringent travel restrictions, many tourist businesses in my riding are counting on a significant rebound this summer. Unfortunately, due to these travel measures and issues at airports and borders, government policy is working to stifle, rather than support, an urgently needed recovery in our tourism economy in 2022. Through their lack of preparedness to keep Canadians safe and preserve our economic best interests, the Liberals and NDP are abdicating their responsibility to govern. In my opinion, before COVID, Canada was the best place to visit and vacation. We can get back to being the best, and we should strive for nothing less, but we have a lot of work ahead of us, and it starts with objective of this motion, which is to get the federal government to immediately revert to prepandemic rules and service levels for travel. Niagara badly needs to achieve economic recovery this summer, and that is simply not going to happen if ArriveCAN and other federal travel and health restrictions continue at our airports and borders. It seems as though everyone wants to achieve economic recovery from this pandemic and a return to normalcy, everyone except the Liberal-NDP government, but it should know there is still time to save the 2022 tourism season if it acts quickly, and it should start by supporting today's common sense and timely motion.

1648 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 75