SoVote

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Jun/15/22 3:03:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister has continued to tell the country that law enforcement told him to invoke the Emergencies Act, but that is just not true. Yesterday the emergency preparedness minister said: I do not believe that would have been an appropriate thing for law enforcement to ask, and they did not ask. Cabinet is clearly isolating the minister. We gave him the chance to resign honourably and he refused. Will the Prime Minister fire that minister?

79 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 89 - Jun/15/22

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Jun/15/22 3:04:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, well, birds of a feather, I guess, because to fire someone in his cabinet for dishonourable conduct, the Prime Minister would have to look himself in the mirror. The public safety minister uttered a barefaced falsehood at committee, and he continues to shamelessly mislead Canadians. He is no longer fit for the Queen's Privy Council. Will the Prime Minister fire him today?

65 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 89 - Jun/15/22

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Jun/15/22 7:48:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House at this late hour to discuss an issue that has been on the minds of Canadians. Though it has been in the news this week, there is a lot more information, and we have a lot more questions than we have answers from the government. I am pleased that I will have the opportunity to get a response from the hon. parliamentary secretary on what metrics the government has used to arrive at some of the decision points it has taken over the last couple of days. Yesterday, we heard an announcement that there would be a suspension of some of the COVID-related travel requirements that have been imposed by the government during COVID-19. The suspension signals to us the prospect that these will be brought forward later, so a few questions arise. What were the metrics the government viewed yesterday that informed that decision? What was hospital capacity yesterday? What was the waste-water surveillance number telling it yesterday across the country? What was the R-naught yesterday telling it across the country? What was the prevalence of COVID-19 detected with the random testing administered at our borders? These questions, along with other epidemiological indicators the government has been relying on, would have informed the decision that it made yesterday, at least we hope they did. If they did, we are looking for an answer to what those numbers were yesterday. Why are the numbers important? It is because we need to tell Canadians how we will do in the future against that past performance. For that past performance, we will use yesterday as the benchmark. Part of the concern comes from the day prior, when the government was saying it was unsafe for an individual who was unvaccinated to get on a plane with an individual who had two doses of one of the regular vaccines that have been offered in Canada for COVID, the Pfizer or the Moderna two-dose series. Yesterday, the Minister of Health told Canadians that having two doses is no longer effective, and at the same time said that it is now safe for people with two doses and people with no doses to get on a plane together. That is leaving Canadians with some mixed messages. They are confused. Canadians want to know why the government made this announcement yesterday, what the conditions would have to be for the government to permanently end mandates and what the conditions would have to be for it to reintroduce them. That is what a lot of people have been asking me today. We are suspending them, but what would it have to look like for the government to reintroduce them? People are worried about opening a small business this year. They are wondering about how many staff to take on. They are considering travel plans, whether they should fly out to see their mom and dad across the country or visit a loved one. What if we change the rules and they are not allowed to travel back? The further contradiction that has come to pass is that a Canadian can travel in Canada on an aircraft, vaccinated or unvaccinated, but an unvaccinated individual cannot cross the border and then travel in the U.S. A vaccinated individual can. They can get on a plane and travel with vaccinated and unvaccinated folks. What magically happens at the border that the government does not want to allow folks who have not been vaccinated to come to Canada at this point, when we know that vaccinations are not preventing the transmission of COVID? I am really looking for answers from the government today on how it arrived at those decisions yesterday and on what would trigger further decisions to end mandates.

638 words

Context: House Hansard - 89 - Jun/15/22

Mr. Michael Barrett

Jun/15/22 7:56:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, another contradiction I want to address with the parliamentary secretary is that, two days ago, the Prime Minister announced that he tested positive for COVID-19. I was pleased to see him participate in proceedings in the House today, which tells us that it is mild, as he said on social media. His office has now signalled that next week he is going to be travelling to Rwanda, to Germany and to Spain. This is inside 10 days. Someone who returns to Canada and is COVID-positive must self-isolate for 10 days. We have heard from the government over and over again that it wants to be cautious. Everything is about the precautionary principle. What is the message the government is sending to Canadians when someone, within 10 days of being diagnosed with COVID, is going to travel to multiple countries and is going to travel by aircraft? Really, is that the cautious message the government says it has been sending?

164 words