- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- NDP
- Vancouver Kingsway
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 58%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $153,893.57
- Government Page
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
