Bill C-10

An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests.
It also authorizes that Minister to transfer COVID-19 tests and instruments used in relation to those tests to the provinces and territories and to bodies and persons in Canada.

Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I disagree with her. I think that the federal machinery of government is very slow. Often, the government is very slow in applying certain measures.

With Bill C‑10, the government is realizing that it can move quickly with the rapid tests and we are pleased, but there are other pressing issues, namely, the health transfers. I think it is high time the government started negotiating with the provinces to transfer the money.

Does my colleague agree with me on that?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10. I will begin my remarks by reminding the House why this important legislation is necessary.

It was introduced because it responds to an urgent need. This bill is critical, as it would provide Health Canada with $2.5 billion to purchase and distribute rapid tests across the country. This legislation would also create the necessary authorities to allow the Government of Canada to transfer inventory directly to the provinces and territories, speeding up the shipping process for rapid tests.

Also, I will be sharing my time with member for Vancouver Granville.

COVID-19 continues to threaten the health, social and economic well-being of all Canadians. It is crucial for us to implement all the tools we have available to get our country back on track. These tools include widespread vaccination efforts, the wearing of masks, targeted measures at borders and the facilitation of COVID-19 testing and screening. I will focus my remarks on the role the federal government has played in supporting our provincial and territorial counterparts through testing and screening.

In combination with other essential public health measures, testing and screening will remain critical to continuing to control the spread of COVID-19. On July 27, 2020, the Government of Canada announced it would provide $4.2 billion, part of the over $19 billion announced by the Prime Minister on July 16, 2020, as part of the safe restart agreement to further expand testing, contact tracing capacity and the associated data-management and information-sharing systems. The objective of the safe restart agreement is to ensure that Canada has the resources and information it needs to reopen the economy safely. The $4.2 billion included $906.2 million for the Public Health Agency of Canada to procure 92 million tests between October and November 2021, which were distributed mostly to the provinces and territories. With this objective in mind, we have built on the solid foundation of the diagnostic laboratory PCR testing capacity built up by the provinces and territories. Rapid point-of-care tests enable health care professionals to target and respond to new outbreaks by isolating those who are sick and initiating contact tracing.

Health Canada has prioritized the review of all types of COVID-19 tests, including rapid and new innovative testing options and technologies. Our government put in place processes to allow Health Canada to carry out expedited reviews of testing devices through the interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19. A second order was enacted on March 1, 2021. As of the end of January, Health Canada has authorized 107 testing devices, including 10 self-tests that can be used at home and 27 tests that can be used in a point-of-care setting, as well as rapid tests. Through this expedited regulatory review process, Health Canada's consistent approach to regulatory review and approval throughout the pandemic has ensured that testing devices available for sale in Canada have been accurate and reliable. As a result, we have avoided some of the problems that other countries have experienced, including recalling lower-quality tests. We have also been able to increase testing capacity across the country.

All of the measures outlined above demonstrate that significant gains have been made in shaping a robust testing and screening landscape. However, we continue to adjust and accelerate our actions to ensure Canada gets the right tests to the right people at the right times to break the chain of transmission. The importance of testing to our recovery efforts is why this bill was introduced, and I think all members can agree on its importance. The statutory authority of the Minister of Health to purchase and distribute up to 2.5 billion dollars' worth of COVID-19 rapid tests across the country that it provides will complement and build on the $1.72 billion in funding provided in the December 2021 economic and fiscal update.

Efforts such as these to procure and distribute rapid tests underline the understanding that the delivery of health care falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, and the Government of Canada will continue to actively support the provinces and territories to meet both their current and future demands. In total, since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has purchased over 490 million rapid tests, at a total cost of $3.3 billion. In January alone, 140 million rapid tests arrived in Canada, over 40 million of which have been shipped to Ontarians, with more than 19 million scheduled in the short term. The provinces and territories decide how to deploy these technologies and are informed by advice, including from the pan-Canadian testing and screening guidance released in October 2020 and the updated guidance on antigen testing released in February 2021.

As rapid testing expands into the private sector, the federal government will continue to ensure that the provinces and territories have access to an adequate supply of rapid tests. We are moving aggressively to bring testing and screening right to where Canadians are. We are working quickly to ensure that rapid testing, in combination with other public health measures, continues to support our country during this pandemic and to help our country reopen.

As members of the House are aware, the health and safety of Canadians is the government's main priority. I can assure everyone that our government will continue to do everything within our power and jurisdiction to protect Canadians during this difficult and unprecedented time. We must continue to remain committed to keeping each other safe, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of the bill.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying to everyone, my family, friends and constituents, happy Valentine's Day.

Today I am standing in the House of Commons to discuss and defend the position of my party in regard to Bill C-10. For people watching who may or may not know what Bill C-10 is, I am going to read it. It is an act allowing the Minister of Health to make payments totalling $2.5 billion for rapid tests to the provinces. I am just going to read the two paragraphs.

Under the heading “Payments out of C.‍R.‍F. ”, it states:

The Minister of Health may make payments, the total of which may not exceed $2.‍5 billion, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for any expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022 in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests.

Under the heading “Transfers”, it states:

The Minister of Health may transfer to any province or territory, or to any body or person in Canada, any coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests or instruments used in relation to those tests acquired by Her Majesty in right of Canada on or after April 1, 2021.

I am not an economist, but I do know that spending money we do not have for tests that we needed two years ago is not an investment; it is a waste. How can the government ask taxpayers to spend $2.5 billion with only two paragraphs to back it up? When my tween daughter was 12 years old and wanted her first iPhone, we asked her to write a three-page essay on why she wanted it and needed it and what she would be contributing as a result of it. We asked for three pages. This bill is two paragraphs long and the government wants to expedite this motion without any debate to spend $2.5 billion.

We are almost at a trillion dollars in debt. People with good jobs cannot afford houses. We have a homeless crisis. I paid $1.58 at the pump for gas. This is not a small amount of money. We cannot just expedite this. To reiterate, we are not spending the government's money. We are spending the taxpayers' money, so we need to make sure we are having an adequate debate to spend such an astronomical amount of money that should have been invested two years ago. We are not in the same space we were in two years ago.

The chief public health officer, Dr. Tam, has stated that we need a more sustainable way to deal with the pandemic. How is spending money on tests that we needed two years ago sustainable? I think we can agree as a House that the response to COVID-19 is fluid. I think there is an agreed motion here in the House that we are doing the best we can to keep Canadians safe. Where we differ is in the execution.

In order to take control of something that is ever changing, one must be tactful and thoughtful in their approach. There are outdated travel advisories, punitive restrictions and quarantines, federal vaccine mandates and now 2.5 billion taxpayer dollars being spent on tests that might be obsolete by the time they arrive.

If COVID-19 reminded our country of anything, it is that we have a very stressed and delicate health care system. Our front-line workers, health care workers, are exhausted. They are burnt out. I witnessed first-hand the extreme negligence of patient care in the hospital.

My mother was rushed to the hospital in July 2021 only to wait hours in a hall to be seen. She was not offered any pain medication. She was not offered any water. No one even came to see her. Why are we talking about spending money on tests when we need to be talking about solving the problem? She waited in the hall as nurses and staff tended to patients who had overdosed. Just last week we talked about the opioid crisis in this country. Where is the money for that?

Do members know how excruciating it is to know that their family member needs their help? They could give it to them. I could get my mom a glass of water and fluff her pillow, but I was not allowed in because of the restrictions, so I had to harass the charge nurse by calling repeatedly and asking for help.

I have had so many health care workers reach out to me in their own state of mental health crisis. They go to bed at night and cannot sleep, because they know they do not have the resources to take care of their patients. When are we going to have an honest dialogue about where the money needs to go and where we need to invest it? The reality of this whole situation of these traumatic lockdowns and these traumatic restrictions is that we did not have a health care system capable of managing COVID patients.

Why are we not having that discussion? Why are we not investing $2.5 billion in that? If our hospitals could manage these patients, we would not be here. We need to recruit more health care workers. We need to offer recovery centres to help those struggling with addiction and mental health. We need to offload the hospitals from the opioid crisis.

The Liberals want to expedite this bill, meaning it would not go to committee. Why is that? My constituents and Canadians deserve to know who would be profiting from these tests. Where would the money be going? We need to hear from more experts before expediting such a gross amount of taxpayers' money.

I recently spoke with a small business owner. She told me a story of one of her employees who decided to do a test on her break, because she had been around somebody who thought they had COVID. She did the test and it came back positive. She was asymptomatic and she had to be sent home for five days. That small business owner is already struggling to recover and now she has to make up for that.

Was that testing necessary? We need more experts in to talk about this. We need to have honest discussions about when to test and why to test. Absolutely we need to have testing, but we need to have a lot more discussion before we decide to spend $2.5 billion on testing that may or may not be effective in helping this crisis.

I spoke with a constituent who had to stay home with his toddler, because someone at the day care centre tested positive. He does not get paid when he stays at home. Who is going to make up that money?

We need so much more research. We need to invest in research to prevent COVID and any other virus that is going to happen again. There is so much opportunity for prevention. We are always reacting and never looking at prevention or a long-term vision for solutions. There are amazing people doing amazing research. Why are we not investing in that? Why are we not learning from that?

My question rests. Where is the scientific evidence to support the need for rapid testing for fully vaccinated Canadians? Would this funding not be better spent on our health care system and our mental health care system? Why is this not being prioritized? It took two months for the government to come back to Parliament. Everything it has done has been late. Timing is everything when we are trying to solve a problem. Timing matters, and the government is offering the wrong solution at the wrong time.

Let us look bigger. Let us help people. Where is the research on the long-term mental health, social and economic impacts of these lockdowns? How do we know that? We do not. Where is the research on masking kids and speech development? Why are we not investing in that? It is time for the Liberal government to be transparent and honest with Canadians.

We are a democracy. Let us act like it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague from Manitoba, who asked a clear question in perfect French.

I will answer the question in French.

That is exactly the type of debate we should be having in the parliamentary committees. The NDP member from Manitoba raised the issue of Bill C‑8 and that is exactly it, because in committee we can propose amendments, make changes, gauge responses and understand why one decision was made over another.

We can question not only the minister, but also the experts who come to guide us in our study. That is why Canadians elected us four months ago and we have a job to do. We have to hold the government to account, and that can be done through rigorous and serious parliamentary work in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, the government is denying us that with a closure motion on Bill C‑10 today.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is our duty to be fiscally responsible in everything we do.

It was only by asking questions in my capacity as an MP that I found out the $1.7 billion for rapid tests in Bill C‑8 covered the period from December to February and that the $2.5 billion in Bill C‑10 is for February on.

In committee, I hope to amend Bill C‑8 to include accountability on the part of the government, and that could also apply to the money in Bill C‑10.

I would like the Conservatives' support at the Standing Committee on Finance so we can have adequate accountability for this money.

In the meantime, we do have a commitment from the federal government to fix the problem plaguing seniors who collect the guaranteed income supplement. This will enable seniors to get a payment much sooner than they would have otherwise. I think that is very important. It will save lives.

We are here to negotiate, so can we get the Conservatives' support for an amendment to Bill C‑8 that would ensure adequate accountability for this money?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me pay my respects to my hon. colleague for the quality of his French. Because his question was in perfect French, I will answer in French.

First of all, I want to point out that any conversations held amongst the leaders about the timing of the debates are private conversations.

However, since my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, the House leader of the official opposition, talked about the conversations that took place, I would say that we could have very easily had a proper debate on Bill C-10 in the House. That is what is so disappointing. We could have done our job here in the House and at committee. We could have asked questions of expert witnesses and gotten to the bottom of things. We are talking about $2.5 billion after all.

Unfortunately, the government has decided to shut all this down, with the support and co-operation of the NDP.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, although I would have preferred to speak about other matters that are impacting Canadians, such as the runaway inflation that is affecting all Canadian families.

However, as a result of this government's complacency, today we have to discuss a motion seeking to muzzle MPs on a matter that concerns us all.

Let us look at the elements one by one, starting with rapid tests, since that is what we are debating. The government wants to purchase rapid tests, which it will distribute to the provinces, and they in turn will distribute them to Canadians. On this side of the House, we have been asking the government to obtain an adequate supply of rapid tests for almost two years.

If I could make a joke, I recollect very well my colleague for Kingston and the Islands, who quotes a lot of members on this side, talking about rapid tests a few weeks ago. It is sad to me that he has not quoted me, because I have talked about rapid tests for the last 18 months. I would have welcomed a quote from 18 months ago talking about rapid tests, because everybody on this side supports rapid tests. We were the first to ask the government to procure rapid tests.

We must have these rapid tests because they are one of the tools that give Canadians a little more freedom and hope for a return to a more normal life, living with the effects of COVID-19 every day.

Dr. Tam recently said that it may be time to start re-evaluating the health guidelines imposed on us, 75% to 80% of which fall within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. I will come back to that later.

Rapid tests, along with vaccines, mask wearing, regular handwashing and physical distancing when in contact with someone for more than 15 minutes, are some of the measures that will help us get through the pandemic. For months now, almost two years, in fact, we on this side of the House have been in favour of the government purchasing rapid tests for Canadians.

We are talking here about buying 450 million rapid tests at a cost of $2.5 billion, which is a tad more than the parliamentary paper budget. This government has been in power since 2015, for six and a half years, and it promised to run just three small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019. It ultimately scrapped that plan for sound management of public funds.

We will not sign a blank cheque for this government to buy tests. We will not stand by as though all is well and we trust the government to spend $2.5 billion. We have a duty as parliamentarians to be thorough. We have a duty to ensure that the money that Canadian taxpayers send to the federal government is spent appropriately and correctly for the common good.

Over the past six and a half years that this government has been in power, it has proven itself to have no regard for controlling spending. We are in favour of buying rapid tests and supplying them to the provinces so that they can get to Canadians. We do, however, have a job to do.

That is why, although we agree with buying rapid tests and getting them to Canadians, we have some serious concerns that need to be considered. We cannot abide a gag order on a $2.5‑billion purchase. I remind members that the proposed measures apply to purchases dating back to January 1, yet the government is claiming that these measures need to be adopted urgently.

Let us also remember that this is our third week since the House came back. Why wait until week three to invoke closure when they could have done it some other time? As the House leader of the official opposition said, he spoke with his counterparts from the governing party and the other opposition parties in hopes of finding a way to debate this bill properly in the House, send it to committee to give experts their say, and then come back to the House and wrap it up by Friday, all by the book.

If Bill C‑10 is debated today, if the closure motion is adopted and we go through the usual steps, we will end up voting on the bill at third reading around 2 a.m., which will demonstrate the urgency of the situation. However, nothing will actually happen at two in the morning because, for this bill to become law, it has to be debated and passed in the Senate. Now, the Senate is not going to be sitting at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, nor is it sitting on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. It is not sitting until next Monday.

That being the case, why the big rush? They say we have to pass this bill immediately, today, in the middle of the night because it is urgent and necessary, but nothing will actually change for another six days because the Senate will not be able to go ahead right away. That is proof, should anyone need proof, of the government's incompetence. It is once again turning a situation that could have been handled by the book with a proper debate into a crisis.

Speaking of going by the book, I forgot to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, which I am sure will be fascinating.

In short, yes to rapid tests, and no to closure.

Unfortunately, the government has a history of being perpetually late, as we are currently seeing with the procurement of rapid tests. Almost two years ago, in March 2020, when COVID-19 hit the entire world, with everyone aghast, wondering what was going to happen, and the entire planet in turmoil, our globalist Prime Minister was debating whether to close the borders and wondering how dangerous the virus was. It took the government 10 days to do what it should have done long before, which was to close the borders. It is not that we do not like foreign countries—we actually love them. All immigrants are welcome; I am living proof, being the son of immigrants.

However, in a global health emergency, it is important to make the right decisions. Do I need to remind the House that the mayor of Montreal took it upon herself to send her own city’s police officers to Dorval’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to do the job that the RCMP could not because this government did not want them to do it? That was totally irresponsible.

In addition to the delays at the border, there were also delays in vaccine procurement. Let us not forget the time when the government put all its eggs in the CanSino basket. Unfortunately, CanSino announced in July 2020 that it would not do business with Canada. It was too bad, because we ended up being four months late securing contracts with the Pfizers and Modernas of the world.

Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister put on a big dog-and-pony show when he wanted to suggest that everything was A-okay, even though the government had only a few tens of thousands of vaccine doses. Once again, in typical Liberal fashion, where everything is done for optics rather than substance, another problem arose. There was a 10-day gap in January and February 2021, when there were no vaccines available in Canada.

We have seen one delay after another, the most recent one involving rapid tests. We are disappointed, but should we be surprised that the government has unfortunately decided to put its own partisan political interests ahead of public health interests?

Let us not fool ourselves. I like political debate and good old partisan bickering, but not on matters of public health. The Prime Minister's primary, sacred duty is to unite Canadians on an issue as dangerous, perilous and fragile as this one. He did not do that.

Motivated by partisan politics, this Prime Minister decided to call an election on the public service mandate, which he did against the advice of the top public servant, who was responsible for hiring. It is not for nothing that we saw the member for Louis-Hébert, who was elected for saying certain things, now saying exactly the opposite, namely that he is sad to see his government engaging in polarization, demonization and partisan political attacks on an issue that should in fact unite us all.

That is why we want to say yes to accessing to rapid tests, but no to closure, which prevents us from holding a full debate on this issue.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we were talking about rapid testing. My colleague may have slightly deviated from the main topic, so I will allow myself to do so as well.

My Conservative colleague just spoke about the member for Louis-Hébert, who joined the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois in calling on the government to present a clear plan, as the provinces have done, so that we can get an idea of what is coming.

The member for Louis-Hébert also asked his government to start negotiating health transfer payments with Quebec and the provinces, which is something that we would have liked to have seen in Bill C‑10. Sure, quickly giving the provinces more money so they can deliver rapid tests is a good thing, but we should also start negotiations around supporting our health care systems.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion on this. Is it not high time that the Prime Minister started to listen to his caucus members a little more closely?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute privilege to be here today to speak to Bill C-10, which is legislation that is being introduced to increase the number of rapid tests being sent to the provinces and territories by the Government of Canada. I cannot see this being a controversial piece of legislation. It is straightforward and it is needed, given we are still in the midst of COVID-19. Therefore, I will support it, but I would be remiss to not use this opportunity to explain my view on the broader front of what we are witnessing across the country vis-à-vis COVID-19.

I have spoken at length in this House on my perspective surrounding the protocols associated with COVID-19. I will let Hansard reflect my interventions to date, but let me say this: We collectively simply cannot wish away the pandemic. We all want to be able to move on. People are tired. There has been a significant impact on our lives for the past two years and I will readily admit to a differing degree on the basis of one's profession and circumstance.

When we look at the history of the outbreak of the Spanish flu, today known as influenza, the same debates we are having now on vaccine mandates, around health protocols and the pathway forward were taking place then. In fact, it took approximately three years for that pandemic to make its way through Canada at that given time. Let us be clear: The puck is moving on how jurisdictions around the world are evaluating their respective health measures.

Here in Canada, Dr. Tam has signalled that we, too, will be evaluating our existing protocol at the federal level, and other provincial and territorial governments that are largely responsible for the measures which have been cited in this House are also evaluating next steps. We should celebrate that. It is because Canadians have embraced vaccination and by and large followed the recommendations of public health that has allowed us to be in the position we are in to be able to move forward.

It is important to caution all of us as policy-makers that the decisions surrounding public health should not be made alone on public sentiment, but rather on science, on data and what is a reasonable balance between collective and individual freedoms. I trust and expect that governments at all levels will act accordingly and not on the instinct of what their supporters or partisan base may desire.

I want to go broader and discuss what we are seeing across the country, what I worry about for our democracy and our civil discourse in this country.

First, what we are seeing right here in Ottawa is not a protest. It has gone beyond that. It is a coordinated occupation. We would be naive to assume that what we are seeing in this country is simply and solely tied to COVID-19 and health protocols. The actions being undertaken are to cause direct disruption to Canadians. As is being reported, the organizers behind these actions are well funded, including from foreign sources. The last statistic I saw was that nearly 50% of the funds were from the United States.

The membership includes former law enforcement officers and ex-military members. The actions, particularly this last week, have gone beyond burdening the residents of Ottawa, which has been terrible, but it has also included a deliberate targeting of the Ottawa International Airport. These individuals have openly stated their goal is to overthrow the government. They have espoused ludicrous ideas of meeting with the Governor General and forming a “coalition” to establish a new government. This may seem crazy to some, but that is the stated goal of the individuals behind the protest here in Ottawa.

Elsewhere in the country, there are coordinated efforts to block critical public infrastructure. In Coutts, Alberta, in Emerson, Manitoba, in Sarnia, and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, which represents 25% of our trade relationship with the United States vis-à-vis vehicle traffic that crosses our border every day with our important partner. This, by all accounts, is an effort to destabilize our country and causing economic harm.

I have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We heard today from a number of witnesses, the impact that this is happening on our supply chains. There were industry leaders from the pork industry, for example, who said there have been hundreds of trucks that have been impacted and have not been able to travel back and forth. The economic harm is clear. The auto industry has been impacted. This is having adverse impacts on everyday Canadians.

This is a relationship with our most important trading partner and it is impacting our food security. I submit to the House that these actions being undertaken in a coordinated fashion with the open goal of overthrowing the government is akin to an insurrection and we as parliamentarians should see it as such.

Yes, as I have done before, I will not suggest everyone in the country who is protesting has this intent. I think that is very clear, but I truly believe that the principal organizers who are behind particularly what we are seeing in Ottawa have that intent that I have just laid out before us.

Last week, I was pleased to hear the leader of the official opposition call for protesters to go home. Unfortunately, this was the same member who a week ago actively encouraged these individuals to stay and make it “the Prime Minister's problem”. I truly hope that members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition understand the gravity of what the country is facing and do not fan the flames.

While I appreciate that policing is inherently within the jurisdiction of municipalities and the provincial governments, the actions we are seeing and where this is headed is of truly a national security risk and needs to be dealt with as such. We need to continue to coordinate with all levels of government and I ask our government to match our actions and our posture to the level of the threat that exists. Indeed as I stand here delivering my remarks, it is common knowledge that the government intends to introduce the Emergencies Act moving forward.

It is important that we also recognize the decline of civil discourse in the country. Over the past two weeks, we have seen how journalists have been harassed, intimidated and threatened simply for trying to do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, we have had members in the House who have been targeted, you being one of them, along with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, elected officials across Nova Scotia with packages, with hateful information and indeed chemical irritants. This is completely unacceptable. This is disgusting. We as members of the House have a responsibility to call it for what it is.

I want to talk about the use of “mainstream media”. It is an Americanized term and I have started to notice a number of members in the House start to use it. It concerns me and here is why. It is giving the suggestion that media outlets in this country are propagating false information.

I will readily admit that certain news agencies will have ideological bents. I read the National Post, for example. It has a more centre right conservative view on issues. The Globe and Mail may be in the centre, and CBC could be seen to be centre left, but when we as members start to use the term “mainstream media”, and I hear some of my colleagues across laughing, it starts to denigrate the integrity of media in our country. It leads, frankly, to tribalism, because if we cannot agree on a common element of fact in the House, and yes, we should debate different ideologies, different processes, but if we do not have some basic common element of truth, we see what is happening in the United States, the divide in the country. I ask all members of the House to be mindful of our civil discourse, of our behaviour and the words that can denigrate media outlets from reporting.

I lay these concerns before colleagues in good faith. I do not believe myself to be alarmist, but to be reflective of what we are seeing. I am confident that Canadians, our democracy and our institutions are resilient to what we are experiencing. I ask my colleagues to please be mindful of our role to maintain a healthy democracy, to maintain civil discourse and to ward off those who may want to undermine our beautiful country.

Given that I have about 20 or 30 seconds left, it being Valentine's Day, let me say happy Valentine's Day to all Canadians. To my sweetheart and my fiancée, Kimberly, and to our loyal Bernese mountain dog, Sullivan, I say happy Valentine's Day.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this wonderful House and speak on behalf of the residents I represent. I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Kings—Hants. I wish him well when his opportunity arises.

We are here speaking about the urgency of getting to Bill C-10 and ensuring Canadians, and the provincial and territorial governments, have the tools they need as we continue the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic but also as we continue to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. That is exactly what we are doing.

We procured vaccines. We procured personal protection equipment. We have now procured literally hundreds of millions of rapid tests. I wish to give a shout-out to my friend from Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, the minister responsible, for the Herculean efforts that the minister and her department officials have made on the file. I wish to thank them. Again, this is another tool in the fight against COVID-19. It is also another tool so that Canadians can gradually and safely return to normality in their lives. That is what we in the House all want, to again have normality in our lives, but we can only do it gradually and safely.

It is Valentine's Day and I do want to give a shout-out to my wife. I thank the hon. member on the opposite side who I am friends with for that applause. I wish his spouse the same greetings as well.

I am grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the urgency of Bill C-10. As Canada emerges out of this omicron wave with vaccines widely available and promising therapeutics like Pfizer's Paxlovid starting to roll out, the focus of our planning will naturally shift towards recovery and a more sustainable approach to managing the ongoing presence of this virus.

We know the virus does not have an end date. My opposition colleagues may think that, but it does not. We need to be prudent and gradual, and do the right thing for Canadians while protecting our health care system. This is where the importance of testing comes into play. In spite of all the promising gains, in terms of vaccinations and therapeutics, COVID-19 is still with us. We need a strong system in place in order to manage the virus, now and in the future, to prevent increased caseloads and hospitalizations as we reopen our economy and to prepare for possible future waves and new variants of concern.

Testing complements and builds on the existing health response to COVID. Informed by science and the advice of public health officials, the Public Health Agency of Canada has developed guidance and tools regarding public health measures to help manage COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic. This public health guidance is developed jointly or in consultation with Health Canada or other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, health authorities and public health experts.

As the evidence and understanding of COVID-19 has evolved, guidance has been adapted in turn. Provinces and territories also have guidance specific to their jurisdictions. This may include legislative regulatory policy and practice requirements, as well as professional guidelines. Their recommendations may differ, reflecting their local realities. Guidance developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada complements these provincial and territorial efforts.

As COVID-19 continues to circulate in Canada, we have seen epidemic waves crest and fall, and numerous public health measures, testing strategies and personal protective practices deployed in response. It has been a multi-layered approach. This multi-layered approach taken on by our government in conjunction and working with all the provincial and territorial governments is to protect our health care system and make sure we can emerge safely from the pandemic.

The Public Health Agency is working with provincial and territorial partners to plan for a sustainable approach, an approach that includes using testing to identify and isolate even more quickly cases of COVID-19. Canadians have become accustomed to terms and practices, such as using a layered approach to protecting themselves, which may include physical distancing, masking and avoiding poorly ventilated spaces.

Testing will become a crucial component of this layered approach, especially as testing spreads more and more into workplaces. Canadians have been doing what it takes to collectively get us all through the various waves and have pulled together when it matters most. Through our ongoing sacrifices and efforts, many infections and severe outcomes have been averted.

PHAC scientists have analyzed data and completed modelling from Canada that shows that, in most jurisdictions, implementation of public health measures was associated with reduced transmission of COVID-19. Studies have also shown that the public health measures that some jurisdictions have implemented, such as school closures, social distancing, stay-at-home rules, quarantine and masking, have reduced the severity of the pandemic. These measures, alongside our high rates of vaccination, have resulted in decreases in daily case rates, rates of infection, hospitalization, daily ICU admission rates and deaths.

I would be remiss if I did not give a shout-out to the wonderful residents of my riding and the region that I represent, York Region, where 90% of individuals have received their vaccine and the third dose rate is continuing to increase. That is great to see. Thanks to Canadians' willingness to follow these effective public health measures and to roll up their sleeves to get vaccinated, our outlook for the next several months continues to improve.

Public health guidance will remain a critical tool to address how we respond to the virus in the months ahead and, as the guidance shifts to include testing, the Public Health Agency of Canada will continue to work with partners across the country and around the world to learn more as well as to evaluate the emerging science to inform public health advice and guidance for Canadians. In order to support Canadians to make the best decisions for their personal protection, the Public Health Agency of Canada has developed web-based tools, such as My COVID-19 Visit Risk, that enables Canadians to better understand the factors that affect the risk of getting COVID-19 when visiting or gathering with others.

If Canadians are also able to use rapid tests to determine whether they are infected they will be able to make better, more-informed decisions to determine their risk of spreading COVID-19 and will be able to trust more that others are doing the same so that all Canadians can better protect their communities from further transmission. This is incredibly important when we go to visit our loved ones in long-term care facilities or seniors' residences or other vulnerable populations.

Rapid tests will be critical and crucial as we move forward and finish the fight against COVID-19, but we know COVID-19 will continue to be with us and we need to be prudent. Testing and general public health measures all fit together to stop the spread of COVID-19. Wearing the best-quality and best-fitting mask or respirator available, having access to rapid tests to determine infection and following the various other measures are important in the context of variants of concern, particularly for vulnerable populations who have the highest risk of severe outcomes or experiencing the broader negative impacts of the pandemic.

Recognizing that further waves will occur, longer-term sustained approaches and capacity building are required. As restrictions are gradually lifted in response to local epidemiology, approaches will concentrate on preventing severe cases of COVID through vaccination, supporting Canadians to use personal protective measures and making testing readily accessible. The longer-term, more sustained approach as we fight this virus will leverage all tools to balance the need to manage COVID-19 while minimizing societal disruption and enabling recovery.

We all want to go to our favourite restaurants and gather with a large group of friends. I know we want to baptize my four-month-old and we want to invite all our family and friends there. We want a gradual reopening as well. We know that, and rapid tests will be a critical piece of that. As restrictions ease, ongoing updates to guidance and web tools posted on government websites continue to support Canadians in making decisions for their protection based on personal risk assessments.

I would like to finish by reaffirming that this pandemic has demonstrated that we need a range of measures in our public health tool box, including vaccines, PPE and social distancing, to continue to fend off highly infectious diseases. That includes testing. To fight this pandemic, we have already made vaccinations readily available. Again, 90% of individuals in York Region are vaccinated. That is wonderful. We still have more work to do, but we are getting there. Now is the time to make testing readily available. With members' support of Bill C-10, we can give Canadians a better chance to manage their own health, to remain vigilant and to support each other throughout the remainder of this pandemic.

I wish to say that we all need to work collectively, collaboratively and in the best interests of all Canadians to get through this pandemic. That should be the focus, that should be our end game, and we should not lose sight of that goal.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible of me not to look at what happened in the House earlier today with this motion for closure the Liberals put forward. For two years, Canadians have been living with COVID-19 restrictions. There have been two years of lockdowns, of not being able to visit loved ones and of not being able to travel. There have been two years of isolation that has inflamed a mental health crisis and hurt Canada's vulnerable populations.

When it comes to lockdowns and mandates, we are seeing the evidence and public health advice for change. Last week, Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Teresa Tam, said that all existing public health measures needed to be re-evaluated so we could get back to some normalcy. Just last week, we saw two Liberal MPs challenge their government for being so political about how it was treating the pandemic, and the response the government was taking to dealing with COVID-19 across our country.

Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Israel, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark are all moving to end restrictions and mandates. Many provinces in Canada are doing the same thing. Today, we come to the House and the government does not want to debate Bill C-10: It wants to debate stopping debate on Bill C-10. That is very problematic.

It was on December 14, if I recall correctly, that the government tabled Bill C-8. One of the key provisions of Bill C-8 was $1.72 billion for COVID-19 tests. We just debated that bill last week and the week prior. Canadians were looking for a plan in that bill. Liberals stood up time and again and said that they had a plan and were moving forward. For us to be here today, talking about Bill C-10 in the same context, which would see another $2.5 billion for rapid tests, I wonder what the House leader for the Liberals is doing.

Why do we have two bills that were tabled within four parliamentary sitting days of each other on the urgency of rapid tests when, in my province, the public health officer is telling us that, for the majority of the population, they are not needed anymore?

Dr. Bonnie Henry said that, in most cases, if someone is triple vaccinated, as I am, they can skip getting a test. If someone has COVID, they need to stay home and self-isolate. We are treating it like the regular flu. She is only recommending testing now for people who are currently hospitalized, pregnant, at risk of severe diseases or who live or work in a setting with others who are at an elevated risk of a severe illness.

Already, British Columbia is saying that we do not need to go to the Ag-Rec Centre in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon anymore and take a morning off work with one's two-year-old to get a swab up their nose. No. We just need to isolate them at home and move forward with our lives.

Now we are here in the House of Commons, having a debate about not having a debate on rapid tests. My big question is, where was the government a year ago? Where was it when parents had to take time off work? It costs parents an average of $250 for a week of day care, and then they had to take more time off work because of that. I know for a fact that if we had had rapid tests, parents would not have lost so much money. That is shameful.

Canadians were asking for rapid tests so long ago. Other countries, such as the U.K., the Netherlands and other European Union countries with similar GDPs to Canada's per capita, were able to navigate the virus in a much more efficient way because their governments were more responsive. All we get from the Liberal government is Bill C-8 on December 14, and then Bill C-10 on January 31, saying that we need to pay for rapid tests now.

I cannot help but be cynical knowing that the Prime Minister called an election that was really divisive for all of us. Liberals called an election because of the urgency to deal with COVID-19 and various approaches to doing so.

Here we are, so many months later, debating a bill not to have a debate on something that should have been done two years ago, or at least a year and a half ago. My constituents are upset. They are upset that they have to continue living with these lockdowns, but they are also upset with the incompetence of the government to move strategically on rapid tests, which is something that everyone agreed on, much earlier. That is shameful. It has impacted so many families and so many businesses.

Last week, I met with one of the largest sound companies in North America. It is based in my riding. It was ranked the number one sound company in North America in 2013, and the number one in Canada for many years. It is the only outfit in the province of B.C. that is capable of equipping BC Place stadium for major concerts. Company representatives came to my office, and were pleading with me for some type of path back to normalcy: some type of path to get their business going again. What they said to me was that they had taken advantage of the high-risk loans and they had taken advantage of the business loans. They were thankful for them, but they had come to a point where the Government of Canada was driving independent, private-sector small businesses into oblivion.

Yesterday, I received an email from Mr. Howes at Traveland RV. I went to school with his kids. The company is a major employer in Langley, throughout the Fraser Valley. The tourism sector does not know what to do this year, again. The supply chains are so impacted that the tourism industry does not know how to plan yet another year. It does not know where its revenue is going to come from. The tourism sector is asking for a plan. It is asking for some way out of this.

All we got from the government on December 14 and January 31 were two bills, both related to rapid tests. Frankly, they could have been the same bill. I do not know why they were done differently. Maybe someone could answer that in debate. All the tourism industry is looking for is a plan to get people back to work. All it wants to do is hire more people again. All it wants to see is a plan to end the mandates and to get people their lives back. It is not too much to ask.

Everyone has been vaccinated. We have a super high vaccination rate in Canada, but everyone has also gotten COVID. A lot of people who are triple vaxxed are getting COVID, and that is why some of our public health officials have changed their tune recently.

Omicron has evolved, and the government needs to evolve in the way it is approaching this new endemic stage of the disease.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, which he tells me is the number one riding in all of Canada. I happen to think Barrie—Innisfil is.

Let me begin by noting how profoundly disappointed I am with the results of what I thought was a reasonable request on the part of the opposition, through our opposition day motion, to ask for a plan from the government, by February 28, for coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic and limiting or cancelling all of the restrictions and mandates. We are seeing a cascading effect across the country in the provinces, with premiers coming out and telling their people that by a certain date, this is going to happen. This is causing any cynic to be concerned that perhaps the Liberal government does not want to end the federal restrictions and mandates, does not want to unite Canadians and does not want to provide hope to Canadians. After two years of lives and livelihoods being lost and businesses being decimated, somehow they cannot support this, and it only speaks to the fact that the Prime Minister and Liberal Party want this to continue, for whatever reason. I am profoundly disappointed that we are at this point in this country.

I rise today to speak to the Liberals' latest attempt to run roughshod over Parliament. Today the House is considering government Motion No. 8, which sets out draconian terms by which the House would dispose of Bill C-10. The bill is laudable in that it would give the Minister of Health the ability to purchase 2.5 billion dollars' worth of COVID-19 tests, the majority of which would be rapid tests. It would also grant the minister the power to start distributing those tests on April 1 of this year.

Throughout the pandemic, the Conservative Party has consistently and persistently called for greater access to rapid tests for all Canadians. In fact, in April 2020, I was approached by a rapid test distributor and he told me that he was being bogged down at Health Canada and that the approvals process for these rapid tests was not moving as quickly as it should, despite the fact that they were approved by the U.S. FDA on an emergency-use basis and also by CE bodies in the European Union. Arguably, these blue-chip regulators are the best regulatory agencies in the world. That is not to discredit Health Canada, but it was a problem in April 2020 that I was highlighting, and I know that my colleagues were as well.

In the election, we promised to break down the bureaucratic delays that were preventing the approval of rapid tests in Canada, and at that time, tests approved for use in the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union were not approved in Canada. Why was this so, when these blue-chip regulators were already approving them? We promised to make at-home test kits readily available to all Canadians, to deploy rapid tests to the border and other points of entry and to provide provincial governments with enough tests to keep schools open. Our support for the widespread use of rapid tests has been unwavering, and our support stands today.

Despite the fact the Liberals did drag their feet in getting these essential tools into the hands of Canadians, they can count on our support for this legislation. We are not trying to stop the legislation. We are just trying to get some oversight, because we believe this bill could be strengthened and we would like to propose three common-sense amendments.

For starters, if the minister has the ability to deploy the tests sooner, we would support an amendment that would allow him to do so. That is reasonable.

Second, we would propose an amendment to require the contracts for these tests to be tabled in the House. That is another reasonable request. Let us remember why we are asking for this. These are the same Liberals who found time, at the height of a pandemic, to hand $900 million in a contract to their friends at WE charity and another $237-million sole-sourced contract to former Liberal member of Parliament Frank Baylis. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect there would be some oversight and scrutiny on these contracts. The government, and indeed these Liberals, should not enjoy the blind trust of the House. They have proven in the past that this trust needs to be questioned. As such, we should require the highest level of transparency, especially when it comes to urgent spending related to COVID-19.

Third, the Conservatives would propose an amendment that would require the minister to report on the deployment of these tests to ensure they are being used as part of a plan to ease COVID restrictions. In short, we want to ensure that this investment of taxpayer money is used to help Canadians get back to their normal lives.

I would love nothing more than to debate the merits of these amendments, but the Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP are teaming up to ram this bill through the House. Government Motion No. 8 provides for a shortened debate at second reading and a single vote that would be applied to the remaining stages of the legislative process. If the Liberals get their way, there will be no further debate, no ministerial accountability at committee, no testimony from stakeholders and no opportunity for the opposition parties to make amendments.

The government House leader is offering the House a binary choice, and under this motion, we can either take the bill as it is or leave Canadians with fewer available COVID tests. The government House leader is trying to deny the House a third option: to support a strengthened bill by incorporating amendments from the opposition. Instead, without as much as one word of debate on the bill, the House leader has moved to pre-emptively shut down debate. This motion is a flagrant abuse of power, and the Liberals are being aided and abetted by a hapless coalition partner.

That said, I recognize the need to pass this legislation quickly through the House, and on Friday, I sent a letter to all House leaders proposing a plan to dispose of Bill C-10 by Wednesday of this week. The proposal would have provided for a debate at second reading today, an abbreviated committee study tomorrow and final passage on Wednesday. It also included an order for the Minister of Health to appear at committee and for the amendments to be proposed during the usual clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. My proposal would allow the opposition to apply appropriate scrutiny and to propose improvements to the legislation without sacrificing the government's overall timetable to turn the bill into law.

The House should also be made aware that the Senate agreed to a government motion to adjourn the other place for the entirety of this week. As a result, whether the bill passes in the House today or Wednesday, it will not be considered in the other place until next week. Any due diligence that we apply to this legislation in the House this week will do nothing to delay it from receiving royal assent.

I will now take a couple of moments to address our colleagues in the NDP.

I am calling on them to remember that they are the party of Jack Layton and Tommy Douglas. Back in the day, theirs was a party that stood for workers, for low-income Canadians and for the democratic rights of members of the House of Commons. It is not so anymore. The NDP have abandoned their first principles. Perhaps it is because they have a leader who is more interested in his own social media than he is in social policies and how they impact Canadians.

For example, the NDP openly fights against jobs for unionized pipefitters and steelworkers every time they oppose new environmentally safe pipelines. They applaud the Prime Minister every time he talks about phasing out the jobs of hard-working Canadians in the oil and gas sector. In recent days, they have refused to defend the minority rights of workers who lost their jobs to discriminatory government mandates. They support the Liberal carbon tax that disproportionately hurts the poorest in our society. They support hikes in payroll taxes that make it harder for low-wage earners to make ends meet. The list goes on.

Inside the House of Commons, they have allowed themselves to be the moderate wing of the Liberal Party, and they should be ashamed for that. The Liberals can count on the loyal support of the NDP whenever they move to ram their agenda through the House. Since 2019, when the Liberals were reduced to a minority government, the NDP has supported the shutting down of debate on 14 different occasions. It is high time that the NDP distances itself from the tired Liberal government that is demonstrably anti-working class and increasingly anti-democratic. Perhaps its members can start by standing against this undemocratic motion in the House today. In June 2019, the NDP House leader argued against the Liberal majority government when it moved to curtail debate. Back then, he said the Liberals “promised to work with the opposition parties and all members. Instead, they are imposing gag orders”.

At a time when tensions are rising in this country, let us take the opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that their elected officials can collaborate in the national interest. We can and should stand together to get the best results for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the vote that we just had prior to getting under way with this particular motion is something I am more than happy to discuss offline with the member.

What we are talking about today, the motion that I am debating, is a motion that would see closure put in for Bill C-10, which deals with the rapid tests, in the hope that the Bloc party would not only support the need for rapid tests but would support the urgency in getting the legislation passed. That is going to be the vote that we are going to have later today.

Does the Bloc actually support the sense of urgency in getting Bill C-10 passed? I think the people of Quebec and the people of Canada are watching and want to see how the Bloc is going to respond.

I will answer the second part of his question in a follow-up.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the parliamentary secretary just asked us how we will vote on this motion, referring to the vote that occurred after oral question period when we indicated that the government must present a plan to lift restrictions.

I would just like to point out to my colleague opposite that asking for a plan to lift restrictions does not mean that we are against health measures. On the contrary, we believe that appropriate health measures must be applied, but the government must also tell people where we are headed.

Right now, we are debating Bill C-10. I would like to know how is it that the federal government has the means to provide money for health right now, but every time Quebec has asked for it in the past, the federal level was not there for Quebec.

Resuming Debate on Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C‑10

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know we are here today to debate Bill C-10, which is meant to accelerate funding for rapid tests in support of the current health measures, but at the same time, we need to have a real talk about the health of our democracy.

Our democracy is currently under threat by extremist alt-right movements that have hijacked frustration regarding the pandemic and public health measures to boost the alt-right and recruit new people into the movement. Over the last few weeks, we have witnessed illegal occupations in cities and border crossings across this country. Fuelled and funded by many extremist organizations in Canada and the U.S.A., including leaders with ties to such groups as the Soldiers of Odin and the yellow vests, which are hate groups, we are witnessing the rapid rise of white supremacy and the growing threat of fascism.

Across this country and around the world, people are struggling. About 200,000 jobs were lost in this country in January alone and people are losing their homes. Meanwhile, the price of all essential needs is going up, including groceries. This is making it even more difficult for individuals and families to make ends meet. In fact, we are living in a time of despair and struggle, and as we have witnessed in history, times of despair create fertile grounds for the far right to spread its hate. A clear example is the Great Depression that led into the Second World War, when we witnessed the rise of fascism, resulting in the loss of life and a genocide.

As we enter the second year of the pandemic, with the frustrations and well-being of people in Canada in great flux, we are witnessing our democracy, although inherently flawed, come under threat. We must work together across party lines to protect our democracy against the rise of fascism. Now is not the time for petty politics. Our democracy is under real threat.

I do not believe that the roots of this occupation are about vaccine mandates, including passports. As shared by a brilliant colleague, El Jones, during the rabble.ca panel, “Where is the outrage? Where has the outrage been with the carding of police of Black and indigenous peoples? There was no illegal occupations popping up around Canada or, in fact, indigenous people who fall under the Indian Act who are forced to carry Indian Act identification cards to prove their Indian status.” There was no revolution and no protest for freedom.

The fact is, we have seen Confederate flags, a symbol of slavery, and swastikas, and both symbols are linked to fascism and genocide. This is not about freedom.

I also do not believe the illegal occupation is about workers. What kind of working-class uprising puts 1,500 retail workers at the Rideau Centre mall in Ottawa out of work for weeks, forcing them to lose income? What kind of working-class uprising forces auto plants to close for days on end, forcing temporary layoffs of workers?

In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, an iron foundry was unable to ship any orders because of blockades at the Emerson border crossing. What kind of working-class uprising, claiming to be led by truckers, is silent about the endemic wage theft in the trucking industry? Truckers, 90% of whom are vaccinated, have filed 4,800 complaints about unpaid wages to ESDC in the last three years. This occupation does not represent them or their interests.

I also do not believe it is about indigenous rights or solidarity with nations that have discovered unmarked graves and residential school survivors. Nor does the Orange Shirt Society, which has denounced the hijacking of Orange Shirt Day and the “every child matters” campaign to fuel a movement of hate and white supremacy.

It is about the far-right movement taking advantage of people's despair without offering any real solutions.

I was horrified to hear former President Trump give a thumbs up to this illegal occupation as he is currently being accused of fuelling and supporting the insurrection in the United States. Democracy is fragile and must be honoured. Our democracy is in danger, and this is not the time for petty politics or name-calling. All party leaders need to come together against the rise of the far right.

We should just look at what can happen, and look at the counter-protests we witnessed this weekend. People were fighting against fascism and standing up for their communities in places such as Ottawa and Winnipeg this weekend. They know and they get what is at stake, and they came together to protect each other and our fragile democracy. I am so very grateful for their efforts.

We also need to crack down on foreign anonymous funding that is helping to sustain the occupation. We need to tackle the spread of online hate and misinformation that is contributing to people's radicalization. We need to ban symbols of hate, which we have shamefully seen displayed in recent days.

We also need to address the root causes of people's insecurity and fear for their future. We need to maintain and expand pandemic income supports, and ensure that wage subsidies are used for the protection of jobs and not the provision of executive bonuses. We need to move toward a GLBI that lifts people out of poverty and creates a social floor below which no one can fall.

There is a lot of anger right now, and people have a right to be angry. I am angry that kids in Winnipeg Centre are going to school on an empty stomach because we have the highest child poverty rate of any urban riding in this country. I am angry that public money, which was supposed to help keep workers on the payroll during the pandemic, was used by CEOs to reward themselves with bonuses so they could buy another yacht or another Rolex.

I am angry that people in downtown Winnipeg are sleeping in bus shelters because we have a housing crisis that successive governments have failed to take seriously with adequate investment. We need to ensure that the anger is directed toward the powerful, not the powerless, and channelled in a way that strengthens our democracy, not undermines it.

When people are looked after and when they are not worried about how they are going to pay credit card bills or rent, or put food on the table, they are less likely to believe false narratives that scapegoat marginalized people, indigenous peoples, immigrants, refugees, Muslims, racialized people or LGBTQ+ individuals for their troubles.

There is hope. We can tackle the far right while at the same time raising the living standards of millions of people. We just need that political will and the sense of urgency that this moment is demanding of us. We need to do it so we can rapidly shift our focus toward looking after people, which is what we are trying to do today in our debate of Bill C-10.