So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Oct/24/23 5:50:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-278

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-278, the prevention of government-imposed vaccination mandates act. To begin, I believe it is important to note that the discussion surrounding this legislation has been highly politicized and riddled with misinformation from the day it was first introduced by the member for Carleton during the Conservative leadership race. At that time, the bill was promoted by the member as a means to “scrap all vaccine mandates and ban any and all future vaccine mandates”. This is, of course, simply not accurate. The text of the legislation before the House now only references a single disease, which is COVID-19. Indeed, Bill C-278 would legislatively restrict the federal government's future ability to set COVID-19 vaccine requirements, regardless of the future trajectory of the virus or the development of new vaccines. If a future variant turned out to be extraordinarily deadly and a vaccine was developed that could stop its transmission, this legislation would legally prohibit the government from imposing any kind of requirement to have that vaccine, even if the health of millions of Canadians was put at risk. The member for Carleton has also incorrectly described to the House the current status of the mandates. The COVID-19 vaccination requirement for federal public servants was lifted on June 20, 2022. Employees who were placed on administrative leave without pay for non-compliance with that policy in force were contacted by their managers to arrange their return to regular work duties. As of June 20, 2022, the vaccine requirement to board a plane or train in Canada was also suspended. In addition, federally regulated transport sector employers were no longer required to have mandatory vaccination policies in place for their employees. Finally, effective October 1, 2022, the federal government removed proof of COVID-19 vaccination requirements for anyone entering Canada. With the record a bit corrected, I would like to proceed with what New Democrats believe. We support an approach to vaccination policy that appropriately balances the rights of people who have not been vaccinated and who choose not to be vaccinated with our individual and collective rights to health and safety. We believe that decisions with respect to imposing or suspending vaccination requirements should always be based on the best available evidence, current science and the advice of experts, not politicians speaking from the House of Commons with little or no background in any of those things. The Conservatives cannot argue that it was wrong for the Liberal government to politicize Canada's COVID-19 response, which I think they did, while simultaneously asking politicians to legislate our country's vaccination policy indefinitely into the future without any evidence. If the Conservatives sincerely wanted to take an evidence-based approach to COVID-19 policy, then they would have supported an independent inquiry into Canada's pandemic response when they had the opportunity to do so. However, shockingly, when the NDP moved an amendment at the Standing Committee on Health yesterday to legally mandate that a COVID-19 inquiry, under the Inquiries Act, be struck within 90 days, the Conservatives sat on their hands and abstained, allowing the Liberals to kill that inquiry. I can see why the Liberals might be reluctant to call an inquiry into their own COVID-19 response, but this reversal from the cover-up Conservatives is truly shocking to see. Under the leadership of their previous leader, Erin O'Toole, the Conservative Party repeatedly called for an independent, expert-led inquiry into Canada's COVID-19 response. The Conservative Party pledged to call such an inquiry during the last election. We will need to leave it to the current Leader of the Opposition to explain this departure from his predecessor's position and the party's public pronouncements. I believe it is unacceptable that the Liberals and Conservatives joined and worked together yesterday to block an independent review of Canada's response to the most severe pandemic in a century, because serious issues remain unexamined. Some of them include the following. We started the pandemic with not enough personal protective equipment: not enough gloves, masks, gowns and respirators. We had no proper national inventory of the personal protective equipment. Canadians may remember that we had to throw out millions of pieces of PPE because they were expired. We saw no vaccine production in Canada, a shocking omission that has stretched over Liberal and Conservative governments for decades, who watched as Canada's ability and capacity in this regard was left to wither and die. There was little to no public guidance on infection-acquired immunity. There was a curious dismantling of Canada's early pandemic warning systems. Canadians had no access to whole vaccines, only MRNA vaccines. There was confusing and contradictory information on the impact of vaccination on transmission. The impact and effectiveness of mandates remains a question. Border controls were inconsistently enforced. Effectively, border controls in Quebec and Alberta were virtually absent. There were ravages through seniors' homes, overwhelmed emergency rooms and ICUs, and uncertainty about the efficacy of vaccines on mutating variants. Now, instead of papering over previous mistakes or relying on pseudo-science to set public health policy, we must leave no stone unturned to learn from the past and prepare for future threats. Many prominent public health and security experts have called for the federal government to launch an expert-led independent inquiry into Canada's COVID-19 response. The NDP has proposed an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, because such an inquiry would be independent. It would be led by an impartial person, notably a judge. It would be properly resourced with counsel. It would have the power to subpoena documents and compel the attendance of witnesses. It would be conducted in public. At the end of the day, it should do a searching root-to-branch comprehensive analysis of every issue that Canadians have raised during the pandemic response by the federal government. Again, the Conservatives had a chance to make that happen, because the NDP and the Bloc were voting in favour of this motion, but they said no. They abstained. Instead, the Conservatives want to legislate science from the floor of the House of Commons. That is irresponsible. Prominent Canadians, such as David Naylor, co-chair of the federal COVID-19 immunity task force, and the former chair of the federal review of the 2003 SARS epidemic, thinks there should be an independent public inquiry. So does Richard Fadden, former national security adviser to Stephen Harper. Recently, the British Medical Journal, one of the world's oldest general medical journals, published a series that examined Canada's COVID-19 response and called for an independent national inquiry. Why do the Conservatives not want one? Again, they would rather play politics. The New Democrats do not and will not allow the Conservative Party or the Liberals to play politics with Canadians' health. The British Medical Journal documented a number of deeply troubling pandemic failures in Canada, including that Canada's emergency response was impaired by long-standing weaknesses in the public health and health care systems. These included fragmented health leadership across federal, provincial and territorial governments. They noted that pandemic performance varied widely across Canada's provinces and territories, hampered by inconsistency in decision-making, inadequate data, infrastructure and misalignment of priorities. They noted that lacking an independent federal inquiry allows others to step into the frame. We have seen the so-called National Citizens Inquiry, led by Preston Manning, for example, which appears to be fuelled by vaccine safety misinformation and ideological concerns with government public health measures. This is far from the full, national and public inquiry led by independent experts that Canada's pandemic performance deserves. An inquiry would help deliver on Canada's ambition to be a global leader, and most importantly, it would deliver answers to Canadians, whose confidence has been shaken. At the end of the day, a public inquiry is needed to restore the Canadian population's confidence, to ensure accountability for decisions that have been made and, most importantly, to find out what went well and what did not. Thus, we could better prepare for the next pandemic, as experts tell us that it is not a question of if, but when. While the Leader of the Opposition pontificates, pretends and politicizes this very important public health issue on the floor of the House of Commons, New Democrats are pushing for what Canadians really want. That is a full, independent, public, impartial, searching and comprehensive public inquiry.

1434 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

Jun/7/22 3:14:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, experts are clear that we will not control COVID until the world is vaccinated, yet only 10% of people in low-income countries have received a vaccine, compared to 77% in high-income nations. The Liberals promised to send 200 million doses to COVAX, but fewer than 15 million have been delivered to date. Last year, the WHO said we stood “on the brink of a catastrophic...failure”. Today, Doctors Without Borders says that we have fallen off the cliff. Why are the Liberals failing to deliver for Canadians and the world?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

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

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

Mar/24/22 12:24:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Quebeckers are so grateful to the NDP for working co-operatively with the Liberals in the 1960s to bring them public, universal, comprehensive health care, which he clearly supports because he wants more money for it. That is because the NDP, unlike the Bloc Québécois, works constructively and positively in Parliament in order to deliver for Canadians, which is something they do not do. Absolutely, the NDP is the party of health care. We are going to continue to fight for more federal contributions to get the federal government up to its 50% contribution to public health care in this country, as it should be.

115 words

Mar/24/22 12:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. There is really a number of fundamental flaws in this motion before the House today. Again, it assumes that politicians should be making public health policy. I personally do not agree with that. The Conservatives seem to think that should be the case. Second of all, I believe that the decision should be data-driven and it should be accurate. Again, this motion, as I have pointed out, suffers from a number of inaccuracies, if not outright mistakes. Finally, I would say that we have been through this before, where we get a temporary lull because of the public health measures and we get case counts coming down, so we prematurely move to relax public health measures. What have we seen? We see a flare-up again. I believe in the prudent, precautionary approach. I personally believe we should be moving very carefully and cautiously for the health of Canadians.

155 words

Mar/24/22 12:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a person interested in science, I am sure my hon. colleague is also interested in the accuracy of numbers. It is not 90% of Canadians who are vaccinated. It is 81.6%. Of course, as I pointed out in my speech, only 46% of Canadians have had their third booster, which, in my view, now ought to be considered required to be considered fully vaccinated. We know, based on the science, that the impact of vaccinations wanes over time. After three, four or five months, we know that the efficacy of the vaccine, particularly the mRNA vaccines, can go down to very low numbers, so getting that third booster is incredibly important. I would just say that federal policy should be to encourage people to be vaccinated and to do everything possible to ensure that all Canadians receive their third boosters. Relaxing and withdrawing mandates, in that respect, at this time, I think, is not only irresponsible but harmful to the health of Canadians.

167 words

Context: House Hansard - 30 - Feb/14/22

Mar/24/22 12:08:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the third year of this pandemic, Canadians are feeling exhausted, frustrated and anxious about the future. Instead of divisive political pandering, they deserve honest answers and responsible leadership from their elected officials. Far from feeling this pandemic is over, Canadians are deeply concerned about what is coming next. People are worried about the emergence of new variants and the potential that COVID-19 will be circulating for years to come. However, after two years and many flawed and changing public health measures, New Democrats believe that Canada is due for a re-evaluation of our public health strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why New Democrats are taking a responsible and science-based approach, calling for a review of all federal public health measures that is transparent, data-driven and informed by the advice of public health experts. New Democrats believe the prompt completion of this review is in the public interest and should proceed without political interference. That is why, last week, we wrote to Canada's chief medical officer and requested that the Public Health Agency of Canada conduct a thorough review of every federal COVID-19 health policy based on data and science, with a goal of either confirming that we are on the right path or making changes if we are not. Unfortunately, the motion introduced by the Conservative opposition today is the opposite of this approach. By calling for an immediate end to all federal vaccine mandates, the Conservative motion is premature and politicizes a decision that should be based on science. Wedge politics and polarization are not going to end this pandemic. Rather than reckless declarations from the floor of the House of Commons, New Democrats believe that we must take a cautious and informed approach to protect public health until the COVID-19 pandemic is over. This motion before the House violates these principles and this approach in a number of ways. First, it is premature and a threat to public health. This motion assumes, incorrectly, that we are done with the pandemic. It assumes, without scientific basis, that we have entered the endemic phase. This is something no responsible science has declared. It ignores what is happening in countries around the world, especially those that have relaxed their public health measures too quickly. Second, it is politically motivated. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have played partisan politics with the pandemic over the past two years. That has been irresponsible and dangerous. I can do no better than to quote a Liberal member of the government: the MP for Louis-Hébert. He stated: I can’t help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve and during the last election campaign. From a positive and unifying approach, a decision was made to wedge, to divide and to stigmatize. He added: I fear that this politicization of the pandemic risks undermining the public’s trust in our public health institutions. He was right. Politicians should not be deciding public health measures; health professionals should. Public health decisions should be based on data, evidence and science, and not on political considerations. This motion reflects the Conservative Party playing the very same game. Third, it is precise yet overly broad. This motion calls for the immediate lifting of all vaccine mandates, yet there are very different mandates with different purposes and impacts. For example, there is a clear difference between requiring vaccination for a federal health professional who visits a remote indigenous community to treat vulnerable seniors with compromised immune systems and for an Ottawa bureaucrat who works from home, yet this motion makes no distinction whatsoever and would immediately remove both. There are different considerations when we consider passengers on an airplane sitting inches apart in a closed environment for many hours, than for those on a bus where people may be able to physically distance. Some mandate aspects might indeed be properly removed, yet it may be prudent to retain or perhaps alter others. This motion precludes that approach. Fourth, it is factually incorrect and misleading. The motion erroneously claims that all provinces have lifted or have plans to lift their vaccine mandates. What is correct is that all provinces have lifted their proof of vaccination requirements for people attending certain social and recreational settings and events, except for British Columbia. The requirement will be lifted there on April 8. In British Columbia, mandatory vaccination policies remain in place for workers in health care, long-term care and public service. New Brunswick has dropped its COVID-19 vaccination mandate for most employees, except for those who work in health care and other vulnerable sectors. The Government of Nova Scotia has indicated that higher-risk areas in the front lines of health care and long-term care will still require COVID-19 vaccinations when the mandates in other sectors are lifted in the province. When the motion claims that Canada has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, it is referring only to a two-shot vaccine series and ignores the third booster vaccination figures. While it is correct that the two-jab rates are in the 82% range, still leaving almost 20% without full vaccination, incidentally, that rate drops to less than half of Canadians, 46%, with booster shots. This motion misrepresents the vulnerability of Canadians and risks their health in doing so. We know that vaccination continues to be the best course of action to protect Canadians from serious illness, hospitalization and death. According to Canada's chief public health officer: ...with the Omicron variant, having two doses—the protection against infection and further transmission goes really low. You really need a third dose to provide augmentation against transmission. All that should be taken into account as the federal government looks at the policies going forward. In addition, we need to study the impact of infection-acquired immunity, transmission dynamics and the viability of future treatments. We also know that this virus knows no borders and what happens elsewhere is certain to affect us in Canada, so let us look at the current state of COVID-19 cases globally. After a consistent decrease since the end of January, the number of new weekly COVID-19 cases globally has now increased for a second consecutive week, with a 7% increase reported from March 14 to March 20 as compared to the previous week. According to the World Health Organization, a combination of factors is causing the spike, including the highly transmissible omicron variant and its BA.2 subvariant, as well as the lifting of public health and social measures. The emergence of the BA.2 subvariant has led to a steep rise of cases in the U.K., Germany, Finland, Switzerland and other European countries in recent weeks. Hong Kong is now reporting the world's highest death rates from COVID-19. China is also seeing major outbreaks in major cities, putting millions of people under lockdown and halting production in major international manufacturing centres, providing grave implications for supply chains. South Korea recently set a new daily record, with reported infections topping 600,000. Australia and New Zealand, which had previously held cases to low levels, have also seen spikes in recent weeks, as have Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Here in Canada, a spike in early surveillance signals across the country has experts worried we could be on the verge of another resurgence. While BA.2 does not appear to be associated with more severe illness in vaccinated populations, it is still capable of causing severe disease among people without prior immunity, which underscores the importance of getting up to date with COVID-19 vaccines, including a booster. What do respected health experts say as opposed to Conservative politicians? The WHO director said this: There are different scenarios for how the pandemic could play out, and how the acute phase could end—but it is dangerous to assume that Omicron will be the last variant, or that we are in the endgame. On the contrary, globally the conditions are ideal for more variants to emerge. Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease physician at Toronto General Hospital and member of Ontario's COVID-19 vaccine task force, said this: Even though we're in a much better place now than we were one and two months ago, there's still a lot of COVID around and there's still a lot of people in hospital with COVID.... Sadly, this is not over yet. Finally, Dr. Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of viral pathogenesis at the University of Manitoba and Canada research chair of emerging viruses, stated: Watching what's going on in terms of case numbers in Europe, I think should be certainly a bit of a stark reminder that the virus has not disappeared.... BA.2 should, in my mind, kind of reinvigorate us to realize we're not through with this yet and in fact the virus can still change. The NDP is fully committed to reviewing all federal vaccine mandates and restrictions, as I said earlier, so we would propose that we amend the motion in the following way. I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “has lifted or” and substitute the following: “is planning to lift vaccine mandates, the House call on the Public Health Agency of Canada to conduct a comprehensive review of all federal vaccine mandates and restrictions based on the most recent data and best available evidence to determine whether such mandates should remain, be lifted or be altered and request that this review be tabled in the House within four weeks following the adoption of this motion.” By accepting this amendment, we can put this decision in the hands of those it should be, those of scientists, based on data, based on evidence and for the protection and best health of Canadians.

1673 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 1:30:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, the NDP has the broadest policy on this. We recognize the important role that the private sector plays in producing all sorts of products and equipment in this country. What we want to do is broaden the private sector to include the public sector. Private enterprise is important and so is public enterprise, and we see the importance of having a Crown corporation with the same model as Connaught Labs, which the federal government owned for many years, to produce low-cost, innovative medicine for Canadians, like insulin. One of the reasons Canadians pay such a high price for insulin in this country is that the federal Conservatives sold Connaught Labs and privatized it. Now we do not have any way to produce this life-saving medicine for Canadians at an affordable cost. That is wrong, and we think a Crown corporation should be restored to produce those kinds of essential medicines for Canadians.

156 words

All Topics

Feb/10/22 4:59:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to serve with my hon. colleague on the health committee. I think that as a physician, he will be interested in this quote from Dr. Katherine Smart, the president of the Canadian Medical Association. She says: The lack of equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines raises significant ethical concerns in addition to increasing the risk of new variants. Vaccines are critical to our exit from this pandemic. By protecting other countries, we’re protecting everyone, including Canadians. For many months, experts have been issuing warnings that vaccine-resistant variants like omicron are likely to emerge from regions with low access to COVID-19 vaccines. The median vaccination rate in the 92 countries identified by COVAX, the vast majority in sub-Saharan Africa, is just 11%. Given that this pandemic will not be over anywhere until it is over everywhere throughout the world, can the member explain why the Conservative Party refuses to support the TRIPS waiver at the WTO to expand production in developing countries?

172 words

All Topics

Feb/10/22 4:02:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, early in the pandemic, epidemiologists observed that this virus knows no borders. They warned that if we did not have a global vaccination program, then what they described as “immune escape variants” would undoubtedly emerge and make their way even to places like Canada that have very high vaccination rates. One of the responses to this is to allow countries around the world to have access to the technology and vaccine intellectual property that the public paid for, so that they could actually produce vaccines and vaccinate their citizens faster. This not only would be fair to them but would help Canadians stay safe. I wonder if my hon. colleague agrees with the NDP that Canada should support the TRIPS waiver at the WTO so that we can expand global vaccine production and help keep Canadians safe. Up to now, I have not heard the member's leader or Conservatives actually support that very rational measure.

160 words

All Topics

Feb/10/22 12:08:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to that very important question about patents. I agree with the member that the position of the Canadian government is unconscionable, in that we continue to be a barrier to waiving the TRIPS waivers at the World Trade Organization. We are standing in the way of other countries being able to vaccinate their citizens. I want to speak for a moment about patents in this country. At one time, the Liberal government boasted that we had the widest portfolio in the world. Now, we have one of the narrowest. There are fours kinds of vaccines: whole vaccines, gene therapy vaccines, composite vaccines and another type. We only have one type of vaccine, the gene therapy vaccine, that is really only made by two manufacturers. I do not know why Health Canada is not approving other vaccines, such as whole vaccines that are being used very effectively in countries with COVID, because that would give more choice to Canadians who may have concerns about mRNA technology. They could have access to whole vaccines, as Europeans do and as people in Asia do. A Canadian company that has received money from the government, Novavax, has had its vaccine approved in over 24 countries, and it is still not approved here. We need to—

217 words

All Topics

Feb/10/22 12:03:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his leadership and support across party lines for a better policy for the Canadian government to ensure vaccine equity around the world. It is also a delight to serve with him on the health committee. He is exactly right. It is true that billions of dollars of taxpayer funds went into the development of vaccines. In Moderna's case, I believe $2 billion, 100% of the funding for its vaccine, was paid for by taxpayers. Similarly, when Pfizer partnered with its German partner, it received I believe half a billion euros from the German government. It means this technology is publicly financed. It should be available for the public good. Moreover, we all stand to benefit by unleashing the ability of every country in the world to obtain the ability to manufacture, distribute and vaccinate its own population. Any measure that works against that, by definition, is not only unfair but counterproductive. The Liberal government, at the World Trade Organization, still refuses to throw its support behind a temporary waiver of the TRIPS regulations to ensure every country can obtain access to vaccines and technology free of patents. The United States have said they would do it. I do not understand why the government will not do so when it is so important not only to help the world's population, but to help Canadians deal with the next omicron escape variant.

240 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 19 - Dec/16/21

Feb/10/22 11:53:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we stand at a pivotal time in our country's history. Canadians in every corner of our land have been profoundly affected by what has been described as a once-in-a-century global pandemic. I think it is uncontroversial to assert that no one could ever have envisioned the sweeping and dislocating health, economic, political and social ramifications of COVID-19. Over three million Canadians have been infected. Some 35,000 Canadians lost their lives, all too frequently suffering and dying alone. Families have been separated. Important celebrations and markers in people's lives have been cancelled. Workers have lost their incomes, and small business people their enterprises. Culture, education, travel and friendships have been negatively impacted. Mental and physical health have been seriously tested. It is fair to say that Canadians are exhausted and have been challenged, not only by the virus but by the severe disruptions they have had to endure to respond to it. I also think it is fair to acknowledge that policy-makers at all levels of government have had to act in unprecedented circumstances. We have all had to improvise at times and make the best decisions we can based on an imperfect understanding of the facts and the vicissitudes of an uncertain future. It is a stark reminder that Mother Nature is bigger than all of us and impossible to outsmart. As such, I think some grace and generosity of spirit would be helpful for our country at this time. However, it is also imperative that we acknowledge that mistakes have been made, important responsibilities have been breached and circumstances have been exploited, and I believe that blame is shared by every institution in our country. Government leaders have seized upon the pandemic as a political opportunity to engage in wedge politics and to seek partisan advantage. Political parties have exacerbated divisions and irresponsibly fanned the flames of insurrection. Public health agencies and officials have failed to adequately prepare our nation for this emergency. This is particularly unforgivable when we had previous warnings and blueprints to do just that. Numerous policy reversals and errors were made, and certainty has been inappropriately expressed when data was unclear and developing. Large corporations have used shortages and economic vulnerabilities for excessive profiteering, and Canadians themselves have, occasionally unwittingly and sometimes deliberately, spread misinformation or hateful rhetoric online. The result is that division among citizens has rarely been so sharp. An unfortunate and irresponsible oversimplification of issues has developed. Perhaps most alarmingly, a lack of transparency has stifled scientific debate, impaired legitimate questioning and allowed errors to persist when they have occurred. This is unhelpful, it is unscientific and, most importantly, it does not serve to improve Canadians' health or public confidence in our institutions. I believe it is time to recognize all of this and make changes where possible. We are now fully two years into this pandemic. Times have changed, and so have our citizens. People are much better informed and have access to data and different practices from around the world. In many cases, they can now draw upon their own experiences. They have a much sharper notion of what works, what makes sense and what does not. They can spot inconsistencies and identify policy reversals, of which by now there are a myriad. It is time to recognize that many Canadians have legitimate questions about the health policies and mandates they have been asked to observe. After two years of the pandemic, Canadians are understandably tired and frustrated. People have been making profound sacrifices, and they want to see their federal government take leadership by telling them there is a road map moving forward. Let me be clear. Nothing justifies the spread of disinformation or the denial of science. Nothing justifies intimidating health care workers or holding cities hostage. While assembly, protest and expression are cherished values in our country, we do not and cannot make policy by mob rule. Equally, we cannot abandon vulnerable people to COVID by dropping all public health restrictions overnight, as some provinces propose. That would be irresponsible and driven more by politics than by science. We know that seniors and those with vulnerable health conditions are at greater risk of becoming seriously ill if they contract COVID, and we must ensure that evidence-based public health measures are in place to protect them. While COVID is still circulating in Canada and internationally, a vaccines-plus approach continues to be essential to the pandemic response. This includes layering vaccinations with timed and targeted public health measures and individual protective practices. As Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, has recently acknowledged, it is important and timely to re-examine public health measures to determine what the next step should be. New Democrats agree. We believe it is both healthy and necessary to review our current policies based on data, science and evidence, both to confirm that we are on the right track and to make course corrections where we are not. We must not hesitate to ask searching questions and follow the science. Indeed, the very essence of science is questioning. We question giants such as Newton and Einstein. Surely, we can question the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. Frankly, given their performance failures to date, we must do so. However, it is important to note that the motion before the House mis-characterizes what Dr. Tam stated. At a news conference on February 4, Dr. Tam responded to questions on vaccine passports and travel restrictions by noting that the federal government is looking at a “whole range of public health measures” and policies with the provinces and territories to determine what the path forward might be for a whole suite of these measures. Importantly, Dr. Tam also stated, “maintaining layers of protection remains important to reduce spread, particularly as we continue to spend more time indoors over the winter and as public health measures begin to ease in areas of the country.” This is prudent. We must recognize that as very high infection rates continue to challenge or exceed testing capacity, reported case numbers underestimate the true number of infections in Canada, and the ongoing high volume of COVID cases across Canada continues to place a heavy strain on our health care system because of increased hospital admissions and high illness among health care workers. This motion is fundamentally flawed. It prejudges the science by coming to a conclusion before the investigation has been completed. While all Canadians, of course, look forward to a return to normal and the elimination of extraordinary public health measures, it is completely irresponsible to call for such before we know it is responsible and safe to do so. In any event, some things are very clear. In order for us to move out of the pandemic better prepared for the future, the federal government must increase health care transfers to the provinces and territories. This kind of federal leadership will help it address staff shortages, increase capacity in hospitals and make sure that Canadians can get the care they need when they need it. This is a lesson of COVID that cannot wait to be implemented. We have to ensure that more beds are available in ICUs and general wards, and that surge capacity is better planned. Canadians must be able to get surgeries in a timely manner, and have quicker access to life-saving diagnostic tests and screenings for things such as cancer. The federal government also needs to improve access to PCR and rapid antigen testing and personal protective equipment for all Canadian health care workers, frontline workers, educators and households. Testing and tracing remain core parts of dealing with COVID in any scenario, as we cannot manage what we do not measure. Further, it is essential that the Liberals stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry and support waiving intellectual property rights on global COVID‑19 vaccines and technologies to get the world vaccinated. Immune escape variants will continue to emerge and threaten our hard-won gains unless everyone in the world has full access to vaccinations and other health technologies as they emerge. This is not just a matter of equality. This is a matter of self-preservation and self-interest. One thing is certain. New Democrats consider ourselves to be the party of health care. It was through the vision, hard work and determination of New Democrats across this country that our public health care system was conceived and built. New Democrats will never stop fighting for Canadians to have effective, evidence-based public health measures and the strong, resilient and comprehensive public health care system they and their families deserve.

1454 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 12 - Dec/7/21

Dec/16/21 11:05:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-2

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague just mentioned that we had not heard of the omicron variant three months ago. That is true, but for over a year, epidemiologists, infectious disease specialists and the WHO have been warning Canada and all countries that if we do not vaccinate the developing world, a variant of concern will eventually develop and it will come to our country. The fact that Canada and other countries have stood by while only 10% of Africa is vaccinated has helped contribute to the omicron variant. Will the member stand in the House and state clearly for Canadians that she supports the waiver of the patent rules at the WTO to enable countries like South Africa, India and others to start producing vaccines? Does she support that waiver, because the Canadian government has not said that directly yet?

140 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 9 - Dec/2/21

Dec/7/21 3:14:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, only 6% of people in low-income countries have received a COVID-19 vaccine. The African continent needs hundreds of millions of doses just to get 40% of its people vaccinated, yet deliveries were slashed because of supply shortages, putting us all at risk. Global vaccine production must expand immediately, but Liberals are blocking WTO efforts to get this done. Will the government finally support the TRIPS patent waiver to help countries produce desperately needed vaccines, yes or no?

81 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 6 - Nov/29/21

Dec/2/21 1:47:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his victory and welcome him to the House. About a year ago, health experts around the world warned us that if we did not vaccinate the entire world, we risked the development of a mutated coronavirus that would then prove to be problematic and perhaps even vaccine resistant. Part of this was manifested in South Africa and India going to the WTO to request an exemption from intellectual property provisions to allow countries to produce the vaccine all over the world. I know the Liberal Party has opposed that measure at the WTO. I have not heard what the Conservative Party policy is on this. Could my colleague tell us whether he supports the NDP in our call for the WTO waiver of the TRIPS regulations?

137 words

All Topics