Bill S-209

Pandemic Day Act

An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day

This enactment designates March 11th in each and every year as “Pandemic Observance Day”.

Pandemic Day Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 5:44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-209 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, be read the third time and passed.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always it is an honour to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to my constituents and all Canadians.

Particularly, on Bill S-209, I find it interesting that we are debating the creation of a day, which happened approximately four years ago, for when COVID-19 became a big thing. I remember that four years ago well. I was in this place as a newly elected member of Parliament, and it was a chaotic time. Many people did not know what was going on. We had differing intelligence and news. In fact, it was not even called COVID at that time. However, then it was declared a pandemic, and then this place and basically the country was shut down. Now, four years later, we have an attempt to memorialize this in the context of a day of recognition.

What I think is interesting, and I would suggest very troubling, is that we have an effort by a member of the Liberal Party to sponsor and bring forward this pandemic day act in the House of Commons, which was put forward by a senator. However, what I think needs to be said very clearly is how impactful COVID was, and not just the virus, which had an unquestionably significant impact on so many lives.

As I have reflected back, and because the debate of the bill was bumped back a couple of weeks I have had additional time to consider it, what I find very troubling is the mismanagement and the efforts of the Liberals, in particular, to squash and disregard the rights and freedoms of Canadians and the division that took place. I think of the 2021 election. In fact, I was reflecting the other day on how unbelievably divisive that election was.

Literally, in this place two months before the Prime Minister went to Rideau Hall to call an election, he promised that he would not do that. However, he used vaccinations. Again, he promised that he would never force Canadians to get vaccinated, and then he used that as a political weapon to divide Canadians against each other, splitting families apart, churches, organizations and communities, and for what? The purpose was in pursuit of power.

I reflect back on the early days of the pandemic when the actions of this place were shut down and there was, I would suggest, cross-partisan collaboration and a willingness to say, “Okay, we do not know what's going on.” We certainly could not trust what was coming out of China. There were questions about what the WHO was saying, and we had to figure things out. However, what did the Liberals do instead of being willing to work together? They would claim on television that a team Canada approach was needed, which is simply code for “they failed” as we have learned time and time again since that point. What we saw was that there was not a willingness to collaborate. They wanted unlimited taxation and spending authority for a year and a half, which is something that would have defied 800 years of Westminster democratic tradition.

We look time and time again at the tumult of COVID-19 and the pandemic, and there were certainly significant challenges. We saw our health care system put under tremendous strain. It was unfortunate that the result of that was not a realistic conversation about the fact that we had a virus that brought our health care system to its knees, even though we invest hundreds of billions of dollars a year into that health care system. We have not had those realistic conversations in the follow up to that.

I was speaking to someone earlier today who talked about the trauma to him and his family. They talked about how a member of their family committed suicide because of the isolation they faced during COVID. We see tragic stories like that, and we still have concerns, whether they are concerns around vaccine injuries, which the Liberals seem quick to suggest are simply conspiratorial, or concerns related to long COVID, where there are individuals who still cannot get access to the care that they need to deal with some of the consequences of a virus that we still do not necessarily have a good understanding of.

I would just note a practical impact of the mismanagement. There used to be a pretty significant consensus, and I have been very vocal in my support for the use of vaccines, dating to long before COVID. However, because of the Liberals' intentional dividing of Canadians, today we see greater vaccine hesitancy than there was only a few years ago.

I happened to be on the ethics committee, on which I have the opportunity to serve during this Parliament as well. We saw that, when Liberals spend money, along with that money, comes scandal. Whether it was the WE Charity, ventilators or arrive scam, on and on the scandal train goes. We see how things that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago have been normalized because of the willingness of the government to take advantage, and the members even use language like this. They used it in trying to reshape the economy to some utopian vision that is certainly not leaving Canadians better off, so it is the furthest thing from a utopia, but that is the language the Liberals use.

I would simply suggest this: There are still many Canadians who want answers about the spending, the actions and why things were allowed to devolve. So often, still today, we hear how COVID is still being used as an excuse, whether that be for the debt or deficits, yet we learned that, of the COVID spending, 35% of that money expended during COVID was not even related to the pandemic.

We see mismanagement. When it comes to the national response, especially in the early days of the pandemic, the economic inefficiencies with which the government managed its programs are astounding. The government was unwilling to work with industry, but encouraged sectors of the economy to lay people off, subsidized their being laid off, and then subsidized those businesses to continue to keep their doors open. Talk about inefficiencies. No wonder we have such a productivity gap existing today.

Four years ago, on March 11, I remember that briefing that took place, and the irony. It was interesting because there were a couple of hundred people packed into a committee room that had been set up in a theatre style in the Wellington Building. There were health officials there who were basically saying that they did not know what was going on. We see how, in times of crisis, the virtue of leadership shows up, and in that regard, Canada was left lacking. We saw, instead of bringing the country together, the Prime Minister attempted to enrich himself and his friends. We saw a government that, instead of trying to collaborate, tried to consolidate and bring forward more authority upon itself.

Do we need a day to acknowledge the trauma that so many faced? I still hear from people who have broken relationships, broken family members and have lost loved ones, and they are on all sides of each debate, whether that is for vaccines or against vaccines, for lockdowns or against lockdowns. They are on both sides of the debate whether to support action on COVID, taking it seriously, or to not support that. The trauma that was unleashed upon our country because we had a government that was more worried about self-preservation than working in the best interest of Canadians is a legacy that certainly bears reflection. However, I do not think the way to do that is through a day of recognition because, on the division, I think Canadians would far rather see accountability.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and add a few thoughts in regard to the pandemic observance day that is being proposed. I would first like to acknowledge both my colleague and the Senate of Canada for coming up with the initiative and the idea of designating March 11 as pandemic observance day.

We have so many days, weeks and months that are recognized for all sorts of different reasons. When I think of March 11 being pandemic observance day, I see that as a positive thing. We all went through a great deal during a very difficult time. We are talking about a worldwide pandemic during which so many people died, because the pandemic did not discriminate.

There is a lot to be learned from the last pandemic. Seeing that designation here in Canada would allow individuals, whatever their background, their career choice or understanding of the issue, the opportunity to have that day as a day on which to highlight the concerns and issues that maybe they encountered during the pandemic, and to briefly provide comment in regard to what actually took place.

We all know about the worldwide pandemic and the individuals, non-profits and governments here in Canada, with a team Canada approach, that took on the pandemic. I am very proud of many of the things we were able to do here in Ottawa to support and have the backs of Canadians. It is something that we will no doubt continue to talk about into the future, about the government's role and how the national government worked with provincial entities, how the Prime Minister, for example, originally on a daily basis, provided a briefing for Canadians, and the financial supports that were put into place, whether it was for small businesses through the wage subsidy programs and loans, or the CERB program, which literally helped millions of Canadians to have an income.

There was a great deal of co-operation that took place with different levels of government and different political entities. We had Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, and governments at all levels working together, recognizing the needs. We often hear about mandates. Some of the mandates were at the federal level, and others were at the provincial level. There was everything from curfews to the wearing of masks to restrictions of businesses and so forth.

There was the creation of programs that were put into place to have the backs of Canadians in all regions of the country. That is one aspect that could be reflected on, on a future March 11.

Then there is the whole idea of heroes, individuals who really stepped up to the plate. I am thinking of first responders and our health care workers. I think about other individuals. We often think about our health care workers and recognize the amazing work they did, but I also think about public transit drivers and taxi drivers. People were going into those vehicles, and those drivers continued to provide a public service. I think about the long haul truck drivers who continued to provide the essential groceries to our stores, as well other types of consumer products, whether it was toilet paper, which was a challenge at the very beginning of the pandemic, or other supplies.

There were so many individuals, non-profits and governments whose actions made a huge difference for Canadians as a whole.

We had our military step up. We had organizations like Red Cross that stepped up. After mentioning those two, I think about our seniors in care facilities, where there were huge concerns about the outbreaks and the number of deaths, and so forth. It was an all-encompassing, holistic approach for the different sectors of society. We had private companies that managed to keep people employed, even when it was challenging in terms of the type of work they might be able to do. They did not want to let people go or fire people, recognizing the impact that would have on the economy.

We had some businesses retool and start production of some materials needed during the pandemic. In hindsight today, there was a great deal of effort by so many people in every capacity of society that enabled us, ultimately, to get out of the pandemic in a relatively positive fashion. In comparison to other countries around the world, like the United States or many of the European countries, Canada did reasonably well. That was, in most part, because people recognized what we needed to do, came to many different tables in many forms and ultimately made a difference. As a direct result, lives were saved. Not as many hospital expenses were incurred. The family unit, in good part, was protected as much as possible. We were able to get some sort of normalcy back in a quicker fashion, depending on the area of the nation. Some provinces had more quarantine types of issues than others.

I think recognizing March 11 as the pandemic observance day would be a positive thing where many people in many ways could reflect upon the pandemic. I think of all the different types of special days, weeks or months that we, as the House of Commons, have taken a position on and have said that we support. We have done quite a bit of that.

I suggest that recognizing a day to observe the pandemic would be of great value to Canadians. For school systems, professional organizations, working environments and governments to have that day would provide an opportunity to talk about it in the hope of ultimately moving forward. It would keep Canadians better informed, going into the future, about some of the very basic issues of medical attention and making sure things like vaccinations are done when necessary. In fact, I just recently had a constituent talk about shingles and the vaccines for shingles. The level of heightened awareness about a series of different medical issues is a direct result of the pandemic. I think there is a lot to be learned.

I would encourage all members to get behind this and to give their support to Bill S-209.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise to speak in support of Bill S-209. I thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for sponsoring this bill.

A pandemic observance day, if passed, would honour the loved ones we lost to COVID-19. It would recognize the countless sacrifices made by frontline workers in Canada and abroad. It would provide us with a chance to reflect on the ongoing impacts COVID-19 continues to have.

On behalf of Nunavut, I will reflect on our experiences during the pandemic. I thank Dr. Michael Patterson, who was the chief public health officer for Nunavut during the COVID-19 pandemic. While I was apprehensive at first, I gained great respect for him and his role. Because of his great leadership, it took much longer for COVID-19 to reach Nunavut compared with other provinces and territories.

I remind the House that all 25 of the communities I represent in Nunavut are fly-in only. That was part of the reason it was easier to isolate, quarantine and screen for infections. Starting on March 25, 2020, the territorial government restricted all travel into Nunavut. Only residents and essential medical workers were allowed to enter, and they were first required to quarantine for 14 days. The territory was essentially on a complete lockdown.

While cases surged in Canada and abroad, Nunavut remained without cases of COVID-19. For once, our isolated communities were protected. I thank the decisiveness of members of the territorial government, whose fast and aggressive actions kept Nunavummiut safe. I thank the former premier, Joe Savikataaq; the current premier, P.J. Akeeagok; the minister of health, John Main; and the chief medical officer, Dr. Michael Patterson, for their leadership in these difficult times.

For many months, Nunavut’s pandemic measures were controversial. Many Nunavummiut struggled with being isolated in hotels, waiting to go home. Mental health supports were needed as people struggled in their journey home.

The following June, many restrictions were lifted. First, parks and day cares were reopened, and outdoor gatherings were allowed. By the end of the month, even bars and restaurants reopened, subject to social distancing.

Nunavut would not see a positive case until eight months after the pandemic officially began in Canada. On November 6, 2020, Nunavut’s first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Sanikiluaq. In a week, this increased to eight confirmed cases. A week after that, cases exploded to 84. I am positive that this huge spike in cases is 100% related to the overcrowded housing situation that Nunavummiut are forced to endure.

While new lockdowns and social distancing measures sought to keep COVID-19 under control, the bubble had burst. Overall, Nunavut recorded 3,531 cases of COVID-19. I am very sad to say that 10 of my constituents died. These were people I knew, who were mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents and friends. Extended family is important in my riding, and more than 10 families changed forever because of the pandemic. In a territory as small and tight-knit as Nunavut, these losses are amplified.

While the pandemic may be considered over, its effects persist. Many have spoken about the impacts of social isolation on mental health. The profound impacts on Nunavummiut of increased loneliness and two years without socialization remain; these include worsening anxiety and depression. With colonial policies, the mental health needs of Nunavummiut continue to be ignored. There are more completed suicides there than in any other jurisdiction, especially among youth, and this is extremely concerning.

While I have complete faith in Nunavummiut to support each other, they are given hurdles that make healing beyond their reach. The Liberals must invest in Nunavut. We need better access to culturally relevant and trauma-informed mental health care. The health care system in Nunavut is already extremely strained. COVID-19 highlighted many of the issues that my constituents must live with every day. Just last year, health services had to be reduced in six communities because of the lack of staff. More than two dozen key positions were unstaffed. Some are still operating on an emergency-only basis, meaning people cannot access primary health care.

The life expectancy in Nunavut is 71 years, while in Canada overall it is 82 years. Even when a doctor or nurse is available, for most basic and specialized services people must fly thousands of kilometres south to hospitals in Iqaluit, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Yellowknife or Edmonton. The federal government must do more to support, train, recruit and retain qualified health care workers in Nunavut. More must be invested in health infrastructure so that families are not separated just to get the care they need.

COVID-19 is not the only respiratory disease that people in Nunavut endure. The Nunavut Department of Health announced tuberculosis outbreaks in Pond Inlet last March, in Naujaat last May and, more than two years ago, in Pangnirtung. Tuberculosis has been practically eradicated in the rest of Canada, but it persists in my communities. According to a 2018 report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the average annual rate of TB among Inuit is 290 times higher than in Canadian-born, non-Indigenous people. This number is Canada’s shame. It is evidence that the government does not meet its obligations to Inuit.

Hopes were high in 2018 when the Liberals announced a plan to end tuberculosis in Inuit communities by 2030. Six years have passed, and infection rates remain high as federal funding continues not to be enough. Five people in Inuit communities have died by TB since 2021. I should not have to call on the federal government to recommit funding to address tuberculosis and save lives in Nunavut, yet here I am, practically begging the government to please invest in Nunavut. This includes investing in housing so that respiratory diseases are prevented from spreading based on overcrowding.

To conclude, the NDP supports the intent of Bill S-209. COVID-19 had immeasurable impacts on Canada and abroad. My thoughts are especially with the 10 Nunavummiut who died from COVID-19, and their families. We must do better. We must be better prepared if there is ever another pandemic. I hope that the Liberals will address the persistent health issues that I outlined. I hope that the budget tomorrow will include major investments in Nunavut.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to inform you that I may not use all of my time to speak to this bill because it has been a while since it was introduced. The bill is landing here about three years later and, as I like to say in speeches where I am not the first to speak, I feel that everything has already been said, although I would not repeat what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said. On the contrary, I will offer my colleagues a much more conciliatory tone that is far more focused on those who have suffered as a result of the pandemic.

The purpose of Bill S‑209, which we are currently studying, is to commemorate the pandemic and remind everyone that many people suffered during that period. This bill was introduced by Quebec senator Dr. Marie-Françoise Mégie, and it seeks to make March 11 a day of observance but not a statutory holiday. Perhaps it is a way to remember a time that took the entire world by surprise. It was the first time in history that such a surprising event took place, and it was something that everyone experienced both together and on their own.

I think that the important thing about this bill is that we remember the people who suffered and the people who helped us during the pandemic. We remember the good things taken away from us during the pandemic, which we too often took for granted. I like to compare it to the ice storm. I grew up in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. In 1998, we got caught in the triangle of darkness. Someone commented on the strong sense of unity that took hold at the time, which unfortunately vanished as soon as the power came back and the lights were turned on. If March 11 can serve as an occasional reminder of the sacrifices made by many, or keep alive a few reminders of that sense of unity, then it will have not have been for nothing, at least in that regard.

Among those we wish to remember are, of course, all those who died from COVID-19. Sadly, I imagine everyone in the House knows someone who has succumbed to COVID-19, either directly or as a result of a comorbidity. One person in particular comes to mind, someone I have already paid tribute to in the House and who passed away as a result of COVID-19. This individual was really well liked among Bloc, PQ and separatist supporters across Quebec.

Just think of seniors, for example, who were the first to be confined and the last to come out of lockdown. These individuals, who unfortunately often struggle with isolation, were even more isolated during the pandemic. Just think of women, especially those who were self-employed in areas that were rapidly closing down. Think of women who worked as aestheticians, for example, and in other rather precarious jobs usually done by women. They lost significant sources of income and suffered disproportionately from the pandemic.

Take, for example, the guardian angels, all the people who saved our skins during the pandemic. If they had not been there, the situation would have been even worse in many health care facilities, such as hospitals, long-term care homes and so on. I am also thinking about frontline workers in general, all those who could not work from home during the pandemic because the nature of their job would not allow it and who had to go to work day after day in difficult conditions. We needed them and they were there for us.

We can think of the young people, a generation sacrificed at a pivotal moment in their lives. We can think of all those who had to attend their prom remotely or who simply did not have one. That may seem a bit childish, but it is certainly a milestone in a person's life. High school prom is often a turning point before post-secondary studies. We can also think of the scientific community, the scientists who were unfortunately treated badly by disinformation agents, but who nevertheless tried to some insight and information to support our collective well-being during this rather dark chapter in history.

March 11 will be the day we remember the sacrifices made by some, the work accomplished by others, everything we lost during this period that we had taken for granted and that this period helped us realize was important. March 11 will be the day we reflect on how lucky we are to finally have gotten through it and, for the most part, to have regained the same quality of life we had before the pandemic but have only now learned to appreciate.

If it can serve that purpose, then it will be worth celebrating, in spite of everything. I hope we can celebrate it with a positive attitude, contrary to what I heard in some speeches earlier.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. As I said at the beginning, I do not intend to use all of my time, because others have spoken more eloquently than I have.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here with all of my colleagues this evening as the House has returned for its first week back sitting.

Before I begin, I wanted to say one or two personal remarks. This morning I was able to return to my riding for a wonderful announcement with the Attorney General, the public safety minister, the Premier of Ontario and a number of his cabinet ministers in relation to an investment we are making to tackle gun and gang violence.

When I returned to my riding, I found out from very good family friends of my wife and mine, whom we have known for nearly 10 years in the riding, and who are family to us and vice versa, that the patriarch of the family had passed away, so I was able to go to the visitation this afternoon. I rearranged the schedule, just as we all do in the House, and I was able to pay my respects to the family, who are dear friends of mine.

The funeral is tomorrow morning, and I paid my respects this evening. However, I wanted to say to Domenico and Carm, as well as to their sons, Matthew and Michael, and their wives, Mia and Vanessa, along with the grandchildren and all the siblings, that their patriarch, the grandfather Serafino, much like millions of immigrants and newcomers who have come to this country, came to Canada for the opportunity that Canada has provided for all of us. They and their family are in my thoughts. He lived a full life, and he was one tough son of a gun from that generation. I send them my condolences.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-209, an act respecting pandemic observance day. I am also pleased to announce the government's support of the bill.

It is not often that bills are tabled in the House that we can all rally around, but I think this is one of those times. Bill S-209 proposes to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day throughout Canada. It was on March 11, 2020, that the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.

What would this day be all about? First and foremost, it would be a day to honour the over 6.8 million people who have died of COVID-19 globally, more than 51,000 of whom were in Canada. I will take a moment to let those words and those numbers sink in. COVID-19 is now the deadliest disaster in Canadian history, excluding acts of war. It has surpassed the 1918 influenza pandemic, which led to nearly 50,000 deaths in Canada.

We can imagine if, in early March 2020, someone had suggested that 51,000 people living in Canada would be gone forever due to this terrible virus, it would have been unfathomable, but here we are, almost four years, and too many deaths, later. Collectively, we have lost friends, parents, grandparents and siblings. Nothing can change that, but a pandemic observance day could help us acknowledge these profound losses. We should let this day forever be a formal recognition of our collective grief. This day would also be an opportunity for us to recognize all the frontline workers who experienced higher risks of COVID-19 exposure in their work environment while ensuring continuity of critical services.

The pandemic has placed unprecedented pressures and demands on Canada's health workforce and health care system. Since March 2020, health care professionals have extended themselves to meet the increased demands of COVID-19, but they are now stretched dangerously thin. Reports of burnout are increasing, and a significant number of health care professionals, particularly nurses, are considering leaving their profession altogether.

Studies have shown that frontline workers are more likely to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and/or major depressive disorder than those who are not frontline workers. The pandemic has contributed to labour shortages across Canada, most critically in the health care sector.

Without human health resources, there is simply no health care. Without those brave men and women who are nurses, emergency room workers and ambulance attendants, there is no health care. While this symbolic day of observance would not fix these problems, recognizing this outstanding group of Canadians would signal how grateful Canadians are for their work and dedication.

Finally, this day of observance would acknowledge the serious impact COVID-19 has had on the health of Canada's population, both on health in the traditional sense and on mental health. While deaths are the ultimate, irreversible consequences of the pandemic, millions of Canadians have contracted and continue to contract COVID-19.

Over 4.5 million cases have been confirmed in Canada, but we all know that this is a gross underestimate since the emergence of the omicron variant in December 2021, when we began increasingly to rely on at-home rapid testing. By now, we have all had personal connections with people who have contracted the virus, some more than once. While the majority of those infected will recover, some continue to experience ongoing physical and/or psychological symptoms. Based on the World Health Organization's estimate that at least 10% of those infected develop a post-COVID-19 condition, there could be thousands of Canadians who suffer from ongoing symptoms. Many consequences of this condition and its negative long-term impacts are yet to be understood.

In addition to the long-term physical impacts associated with contracting the virus, many Canadians also experienced worsening mental health during the pandemic. For some, the pandemic experience was coupled with the stress of a job loss, isolation from loved ones, restrictions on community, learning and recreational activities, and/or the need to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. The breadth and depth of these challenges negatively affected the feelings and perceptions of mental health and well-being of many Canadians, especially among women, younger Canadians and frontline workers. Social distancing restrictions strained social ties, causing feelings of isolation and damaging mental health. Many people across the country have faced hardships as a result of the pandemic, as we all know.

Again, while a national day of observance will not solve these issues, it would at least signal the importance of recognizing our losses while continuing to work towards understanding and addressing the health, socio-economic and broader consequences of COVID-19. I do hope that everyone here this evening can rally behind this bill.

Since the pandemic was declared, COVID-19 has had an immeasurable impact on every single Canadian and every single Canadian family. It has impacted the way we have all worked, learned, connected with friends and family, and lived our daily lives.

It is important to recognize that this national day of observance is not prescriptive. Everyone will be able to commemorate this day as they wish, leaving room for the imagination and creativity of individuals and communities, recognizing that there is a wide range of potential activities to memorialize this day.

Individuals and groups can recognize this day in a way that will reflect the nature and intensity of their suffering, their needs and their communities. For governments, this could be a day for reflection, a time for an assessment of what worked and what did not.

Every March 11, from here on, going forward, will serve to remind Canadians of the tragic events and the display of solidarity and empathy within communities. It will be a day to come together on what we have learned and how to collectively define a new way forward.

I am thankful to have had this time to speak to this bill this evening and to indicate the government's support for a pandemic observance day.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I stand on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra to respect the reality of the losses they suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I want to take this time to honour the lives of their family members who were lost during the pandemic and recognize that many of them died alone in those early days. I want to acknowledge the family members who could not be with their loved ones and still have not been able to heal from that trauma. I see them, and I recognize how hard it was and how hard it remains.

At a National Pensioners Federation meeting recently, I heard from seniors from across the country that the hardest part of the pandemic was having friends and loved ones pass in hospitals or in long-term care homes. That is heartbreaking both for those who have passed and for those left behind, who could not say goodbye in person. These were the realities of the pandemic then, and they stay with us now.

I want to take a moment to follow up on something my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said earlier. Although this is about the pandemic observance day bill, this is the time for the Liberals to step forward and make sure they do the work, take the responsibility for living up to the confidence and supply agreement and get those national standards for long-term care. No person in Canada should die in long-term care from a preventable disease.

The hurt people suffered during COVID-19 can be recognized with Bill S-209 by having a pandemic observance day each year, and that is why the NDP is supporting it.

I want to note that caregivers also suffered during the pandemic. For nurses and long-term care workers, their work was and is exceptional. I know they deserve better wages, better working conditions and much more respect. The NDP will continue to fight for them. I say this to caregivers watching my speech tonight: We will continue to fight for them.

The care economy, as well as the treatment of care workers in Canada, is an ongoing crisis. Care, paid and unpaid, is the backbone of Canada's economy, and it employs one in five Canadians. The physical, psychological and emotional care of people is essential work and needs to be recognized and compensated appropriately, yet this is not done in Canada, because of gender discrimination.

Women are overrepresented in care and in the care economy. According to Statistics Canada, they comprise 80% of workers in health occupations, 68% of teacher roles and professorships and more than 95% of child care workers. All are underpaid and undervalued by our society and economy. I should not say by our society. I should say by these governments, the Liberals and the Conservatives before them.

This needs to change; it is wrong. The pandemic has showed us that neglecting care workers as an underpinning of our economy, a hidden area that has not received the recognition it deserves, hurts society and our health care system. We especially see this in Conservative-led provinces, where child care and health care are fodder for private profiteers.

Along with gender discrimination, racism is intertwined with the care economy's systems. Immigration policies for care workers are designed to control access to status and citizenship. Newcomers, undocumented people and low-income women are especially vulnerable to the exploitation and precarious working conditions of care. Black and Filipino women are overrepresented within the care economy, and they are some of the most exploited workers in Canada. This needs to change, and the Liberal government can make that change today. The NDP supports status for all.

The pandemic has shown that care workers are essential. Immigrant care workers deserve their status; they should also be able to bring their families to Canada. The collective prejudice towards care workers has resulted in an unfounded belief that care work is unskilled work and, therefore, cannot receive better compensation. This too is wrong.

Now is the time for the Liberal government to step up and end discrimination of care work. It is time for the Liberals to do the work required to improve working conditions for nurses and other care economy workers, and to immediately fulfill their promise to make the Canada caregiver credit refundable for any family caring for loved ones at home, to compensate some of that unpaid work that all of our society relies on.

First Lady Rosalynn Carter, who passed recently, is quoted as saying that there are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers and those who need caregivers. The COVID-19 pandemic certainly proved that.

Caregivers have gone above and beyond to support our communities, but while many stepped up to help their community, partisan politicians used it as an opportunity to advance their ideologies. Easy public health measures, like masks, were politicized and weaponized in our community. As the disability critic, I can say that the rejection of that simple gesture to keep people safe left the most vulnerable at risk.

Persons with disabilities have spoken out about the reality of being socially isolated and experiencing worsening anxiety and depression during the pandemic, because even a trip to the grocery store was not safe due to the lack of masks. The isolation has been particularly acute for folks living with disabilities, who were medically advised to reduce their contacts with others, and for people living with mobility restrictions or who were and are immunocompromised.

Today we are seeing the effects of increased loneliness and that two years without socialization have had a profound impact on the mental health of society. At this time, the Liberals have continued to hold back national funding for mental health resources. This is unconscionable. To leave low-income individuals unable to connect to private counselling, which is all that is available to them, is leaving them behind.

I will echo my NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni by saying the Liberals need to live up to their promise and spend the billions they are holding back on for mental health funding. In addition, with the reality of long COVID, I must mention that the Liberals are also withholding implementing the Canada disability benefit. This, too, must change. It is unacceptable that in this time of rising costs of living, the Liberals would leave persons with disabilities behind and not recognize how the pandemic has exacerbated their lived reality.

Before I close, I want to take a moment to recognize the incredible work that community members in the riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra did during the pandemic to rescue and redirect good, healthy food. Organizations like the Tri-Cities Moms Group, United Way, the Immigrant Link Centre Society, CityReach and The People's Pantry all stepped up to ensure that food from restaurants that needed to close, airlines that cancelled flights and food suppliers that had excess food was redistributed and not wasted. That work continues today as, unfortunately, more and more Canadians are forced to the food bank because the Liberal government and the Conservatives before them have been cutting and gutting affordable housing for decades.

In this time of pandemic observance, I will close by saying that the NDP supports this bill, but the Liberal government needs to implement the standard of care that I mentioned; it needs to revisit extending that CEBA loan that we have asked for, and it needs to really get to work on improving working conditions for caregivers in this country. People in our communities deserve no less.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for introducing Bill S‑209, which designates March 11 as pandemic observance day. It has not been amended, and therefore the Bloc Québécois's position remains unchanged: We support the bill.

The Bloc Québécois stands with everyone in Quebec and Canada who was directly or indirectly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bloc Québécois would like to offer its condolences and sympathy to the families affected by the crisis, and to thank health care workers and all workers who could not work from home. They are many of them, and they are often forgotten. My speech will highlight their work and recall the many people who lost their lives to this pandemic.

Above all, I will approach the subject from an environmental perspective, which I am sure will surprise no one. I will talk about how pandemics are made. What I am going to say is not about the origins of COVID‑19, not at all, but about the fact that a significant number of emerging diseases of the past 40 years are zoonotic. Everyone has heard of SARS, Ebola, the avian flu, rabies. There are a dozen on the government site.

Serge Morand, a French environmentalist and biologist explains it well when he talks about the “dilution effect caused by man, who by encroaching on wild natural habitats and thereby creating more interactions, is accelerating the spread of new viruses by disrupting the animal ecosystem”. The issue is deforestation, industrial livestock production and globalization.

According to the Institut de recherche pour le développement, or IRD, website in France, at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic, Marie‑Monique Robin, an investigative journalist, producer and writer, co-produced with the IRD the documentary called La fabrique des pandémies, “The Pandemic Factory”. The documentary's key moments appear on the IRD's website.

For this project, Ms. Robin travelled to eight countries to understand the factors driving the emergence of infectious diseases. For the scientists who were questioned, the answer is clear: Environmental upheaval is the major cause of epidemics and pandemics. Some 20 researchers were filmed while doing their research and during their interactions with local communities. In the field in Asia, Africa and the Americas, scientists and indigenous peoples seek to understand how and how closely health and biodiversity are linked. The documentary explains that the species most likely to transmit new pathogens to us are the same ones that thrive when diversity decreases. The more biodiversity we lose, the more epidemics we have.

Science has shown that epidemics are becoming more and more frequent. We should expect more of them. The documentary warns us that if we continue to destroy our planet, we will experience an epidemic of pandemics, because biodiversity plays a protective role for humans. We need to rethink the way we live, so that damage to the environment is kept to a minimum. The problem is us, not the animals.

Now let us talk about the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Let us talk about the most vulnerable members of our society. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, clearly expressed his thoughts when he said, “My thoughts go out to the most vulnerable, those whom the pandemic has made even more vulnerable, and to the people living in isolation, poverty and anxiety who are suffering even more and have become more fragile because of this disease.”

The Bloc Québécois leader's words bring to mind another film I want to talk about. It is not a documentary, but it is a fairly realistic portrayal of the isolation seniors may have experienced. Tu ne sauras jamais is a dramatic film directed by Robin Aubert and Julie Roy. The camera work is effective. The slow pace captivates us and shows us exactly what these seniors went through: isolation, cold meals, distress, staff shortages. Martin Naud, age 88, plays an isolated senior in his room in a long-term care home during the COVID‑19 pandemic. He is an old man who does everything in his power to see the woman he loves one last time. Martin Naud is not an actor. He is not on IMDb. He lives in Repentigny and he is a member of the Bloc Québécois. He went to an audition and turned out to be the best person to really connect with audiences and convince them, even though he is not a professional. Take it from me: he did a great job.

There was so much suffering, particularly among seniors. Seniors who stayed in their homes or apartments experienced boredom, loneliness, anxiety, sickness and fear. There are those who died, those who lived in isolation and those who survived in fear.

I am thinking about health care workers, as I said at the beginning of this speech, and about others who did not have the option of protecting themselves by working from home, those who are too often forgotten because they are invisible to us, because our lives are moving too quickly and we are not paying attention to the people around us, to those essential workers. I will talk more about them in a few moments.

Of course, I want to start by talking about frontline staff, all types of health care workers: nurses, doctors and orderlies. They all put their lives at risk to care for COVID-19 patients. We are forever grateful to them. It was not easy for them either. Everyone in society was scared. Imagine how the people on the front lines felt, working directly with the sick.

Then there are young people. Of course, this age group was not as impacted by deaths. However, young people still made the collective sacrifice demanded by health restrictions. This meant many of them missed out on the opportunity to socialize at a pivotal moment in their lives. We must think of them and thank them for their courage and resilience at that time.

We must also acknowledge the work of the scientific community. Although imperfect by definition, our scientists' explanations informed our debates and answered our questions and concerns throughout the pandemic. We are fortunate to have been able to count on them and to still be able to count on them. My colleague from Vancouver Centre talked about how science helps us better understand.

Finally, let me go back to the invisible workers I mentioned earlier. Many of them are women and young people. They may be grocery store clerks, pharmacy cashiers or shelf stockers. They may be delivery people, cleaners, construction workers, subway drivers or bus drivers. They could not work from home. They were essential during the pandemic, and they are no less essential now to our society's ability to function effectively. Too often, however, they remain invisible and forgotten. The pandemic shone a light on them, as workers too often relegated to the shadows.

In conclusion, do we really want to go through something like this again? Do want to mourn the many people who will die, relive the same fear and isolation?

To connect back to the start of my speech, without biodiversity, life is not possible. Our fates are inextricably linked. By preserving biodiversity, we reduce the risks and impact of global warming and its effects on our health. However, we must change now. Otherwise, we are treading the same path toward extinction as today's endangered wildlife.

Biodiversity is our home. We can still save it, but we must act quickly. That will require courage on the part of politicians.

Do we have that courage?

The House resumed from March 22, 2023, consideration of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Prevention of Government-Imposed Vaccination Mandates Act

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise to speak since you were elected Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you and wish you a long reign.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois, the adult in the room, is opposed to Bill C-278. The summary of this bill reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Financial Administration Act to provide that the Treasury Board may not require as a condition of employment in the federal public administration that a person receive a vaccine against COVID-19. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to provide that regulations may not be made that require, as a term or condition of employment in or in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business, that a person receive a vaccine against COVID-19.

In addition, the enactment amends the Aeronautics Act, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to provide that no regulation, order or other instrument made under any of those Acts to prevent the introduction or spread of COVID-19 may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting a person from boarding an aircraft, a train or a vessel solely on the ground that they have not received a vaccine against that disease.

What can I say about this bill? First, we will begin with a short step back in time. Back in the day, Bill C‑285 required reasonable accommodation for people who refused to get vaccinated and wanted to use various means of transportation like trains, planes or ships. It also prohibited employers from retaliating against people's health decisions. The bill stated that a person who lost their job for refusing treatments such as a vaccine could not be denied employment insurance. This was understood to be the COVID‑19 vaccine.

Bill C‑278 essentially does the same thing, but this time it prohibits restrictions related to vaccination status specifically for COVID-19. Bill C‑285, on the other hand, targeted all types of medical treatment. What disturbs us about this bill are the reasons that led to it. Still, I would rather speak to the House about the reasons why we think it makes no sense.

We consider that the restrictions, such as the vaccine mandate for international travel, were justified. They were temporary and necessary in the context of COVID‑19. Although some measures seemed unreasonable, for example, the vaccine mandate for all federal public servants, even those who do not come in contact with the public, these measures were up for debate during the 2021 election campaign and were upheld by the courts.

The Bloc Québécois also refuses to buy the conspiracy theories the member for Niagara West is selling. The many statements this member has previously made on vaccines, as well as the nature of the petitions he has sponsored, make it difficult to see his initiative and this bill as anything other than the umpteenth attempt to discredit vaccines. This is what we are talking about when we talk about the reasons that motivated the member to bring in this bill.

Let us not forget that the restrictions specific to COVID-19 and the borders have all been lifted since October 1, 2022. As for the vaccine mandate for federal employees, it was dropped on June 20, 2022. What is more, this bill seems to be aligned with several anti-vax petitions that contained many false statements based on dubious sources. Nevertheless, the member sponsored these petitions.

The Bloc Québécois will not be fooled. It knows that the bill's intention is to curry favour with the base of the member's party by spreading misinformation. COVID‑19 was not a conspiracy; it was a tragedy. The different waves of COVID‑19 in Quebec and Canada cost close to 18,000 lives back home in Quebec, over 50,000 in Canada and close to 6.5 million worldwide. This is no dream; it is reality. However, we see here that the Conservatives' sympathies do not lie with the victims, the health workers or all our young people who made sacrifices to protect our seniors. Neither do its sympathies lie with my friend Annie, an immunocompromised kidney transplant patient who risks death simply by getting COVID‑19. The Conservatives' sympathies lie with pandemic deniers.

The Conservatives have chosen to forget all of that by voting against the principle of Bill S‑209, which calls for the designation of March 11 as pandemic observance day.

Not only do they not wish to acknowledge the tragedy, they are now proposing that we deny that vaccines saved many lives and enabled us to emerge from the pandemic. They can be the ones to tell those who lost a family member to COVID-19, those who were separated from their loved ones for a long time, or those who suffer from long COVID and are still affected by the virus, that this pandemic is nothing but a conspiracy, a hoax. They can be the ones to ask the guardian angels who have propped up our hospital system all this time whether COVID-19 is a sham, an invention.

Misinformation is a growing problem in our society, and it is very alarming. Misinformation has become an illness amongst the Conservatives. We need only look at the falsehoods they are spreading about the carbon tax, pretending that it applies to Quebec because it suits them to say it does.

It is preposterous to claim to be the party that will form the next government by spreading falsehoods. We can argue about a lot of things, and people can be more right leaning or left leaning. The Conservatives can even shamelessly criticize the current government's decisions on the pretext that it is too left-wing. However, they cannot lie to people just to gain power, although that is exactly what the Conservative Party is determined to do. It is unfortunate for democracy, for the people, and for the trust and honesty that we must honour in this place.

I invite the Conservative Party to reconsider the methods it uses to gain power. People are not naive. The shift towards lies and misinformation is dangerous. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is elevating the debate and bringing some lucidity and maturity to the conversation. The Bloc Québécois is responsible and will vote against this bill because, from the beginning, the Bloc has always supported bills that make sense and opposed those that do not.

By refusing to recognize the value of COVID‑19 vaccines, the Conservatives are once again denying science. If this bill passed, our entire society could someday have to sacrifice its very safety and security to the anti-vax beliefs of a small group of people who are still in denial. That would be completely unacceptable. We have to ask ourselves if individual freedom ends where collective freedom begins.

The Conservative Party needs to go redo its homework, because I am sure that the people who supported it up until now will be put off when they see the party's true colours. It is a party of lies that need to be debunked right now.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I usually say that it is a pleasure to rise and comment on a bill, but this time I am not sure it is a pleasure.

The bill seeks to amend the Financial Administration Act so that the Treasury Board can no longer impose mandatory vaccination. The bill also seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Aeronautics Act, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. According to the bill, all those laws should provide that mandatory vaccination is a thing of the past and can never again be required for COVID‑19. I feel there is something missing in this bill. In the health bill, we could also prescribe a disinfectant to make sure that we do not get any germs, as Trump did in his public statements when COVID‑19 first hit and we were waiting for a vaccine. That element is missing from the bill and we could move an amendment to that effect.

This bill is just one more attempt to politicize vaccination. The hon. member for Niagara West was behind Bill C‑285, which was similar to this one. It is easy to descend into demagoguery. At the time, the hon. member compared the vaccine mandate for federal public servants to something that the totalitarian regimes of China and North Korea would do. I can say right away that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the bill and that it refuses to play into the hands of conspiracy theorists.

I say this with all due respect, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. The hon. member's past positions on vaccines and the kinds of petitions that he has sponsored, however, make it difficult to see what he is trying to do with this bill as anything other than yet another attempt to discredit vaccines. I only have 10 minutes to speak, but if I had more time, I could go back in history and talk about the times when there were no vaccines. I could talk about infant mortality, the Spanish flu and the First World War. We have seen how much of a difference vaccination has made.

The sole purpose of this bill concerns an issue that should be off-limits to partisan games. COVID‑19 has been a tragedy, not a conspiracy. The seven waves of COVID‑19 took the lives of nearly 18,000 people in Quebec, more than 50,000 people in Canada and 6.5 million people worldwide.

The Conservatives, however, have no sympathy for the victims, for the health care workers or for our young people and all the sacrifices they made to protect our seniors. Their sympathy is for pandemic deniers. The Conservatives decided to turn their backs on it all and vote against the principle of Bill S‑209, which called for March 11 to be designated as COVID-19 pandemic observance day. Shame on them. Pandemic denialism may be part of their DNA, along with denying climate change and insisting that it is not real. Both these realities, however, are having profoundly negative societal effects in terms of health and poverty. I think these issues deserve more attention, not a sideshow.

The Conservatives not only do not want to recognize this tragedy, but they are now proposing to deny the vaccination that allowed us to save many lives and get through the pandemic. I am not absolving the Liberals, who were not entirely innocent throughout this pandemic. They also used vaccination for partisan purposes.

Let us not forget that in 2021, they called an election for no reason in the middle of the pandemic, when health measures were in force. The Liberals hammered home their message on mandatory vaccination for partisan purposes. It was a game against the Conservatives to go after a segment of the electorate. It was no more edifying than that.

That is a dangerous game, because it just diminishes a debate that should be based on knowledge and evidence, not partisan interests.

As we know, the government often improvised or delayed taking action when managing the crisis. Take, for example, border controls and the delays in procuring equipment and vaccines. We understand that it was a crisis situation and that sometimes urgent action needs to be taken. However, in the end, some major setbacks fortunately forced us to rely on getting people vaccinated very quickly. It was almost unprecedented how it was possible to create a vaccine that then helped us to significantly stabilize the situation.

France, Germany, the United States, England, the list of countries that adopted a vaccine passport for transportation is very long. We have to remember the situation we were in. Hospitals around the world were overburdened. We saw the images, not just in Canada, but in Europe. So many people died that people did not even know where to put the bodies. That was a tragedy. Vaccination finally enabled us to see a little light at the end of the tunnel. I think that goes to show that research and development and science help us move forward when we are confronted not with a minor cough but a global pandemic.

To deny that by banning vaccine mandates in labour laws and in transportation, and to say that if someone has COVID-19, it is open season and they can show up without being vaccinated and completely ignore a vaccine mandate, that is like giving up the tools we have to protect ourselves in a public health situation.

Making vaccine mandates permanent would have been going too far, much like saying that Parliament should be hybrid permanently is going too far. That is too much. We have to be able to consider the context. The Bloc Québécois has never been in favour of making vaccination mandatory, because that would be impossible. Mandatory vaccination is not possible, unless you round people up and force them to get the shot before they can leave. That would be impossible. There were, however, constraints placed on those who did not want to be vaccinated, and those constraints were warranted.

What is regrettable about the Liberals' partisanship at the time when it was made mandatory is that it did not take into account a position-by-position analysis. Were there any positions where this was not an issue? Were there any other work positions? This is true for both federal employees and those in federally regulated businesses.

Labour relations analysts and advisers were very serious in saying that employers should assess the situations in which the work was carried out by staff. That was not done either. It was done indiscriminately.

Some unions decided to go to court on behalf of their members. There was not much in the way of case law, but case law did support demanding this as a condition of employment, given the specific context we were in. With this bill, the Conservative Party wants to say that they are against this, that it does not make sense and that it should be eliminated from all our laws.

Our labour and transportation laws already do not require vaccination. Our laws say nothing about this. They will certainly not be amended to explicitly say that, in the future, there will never again be an obligation to be vaccinated.

Just think of the H1N1 flu epidemic. It was a serious flu. People were asked to be vaccinated if they wanted to travel. I had to travel, so I got vaccinated. That is life, when there are—

Pandemic Day Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S‑209, under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion that Bill S‑209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.