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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Winnipeg North has 10 minutes and 20 seconds left on the clock.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my colleague, I do value those 20 seconds.

When it comes to legislation, when we listen to members of the opposition and different political parties, they will often talk about the time allocation that allows for debate, and understandably so. I did that when I was on the opposition side as I now today do it from the government side.

There are certain legislative initiatives that are actually processed via time where, for example, the opposition will move a motion on the floor of the House and at the end of the day a vote is requested on it, or they can go into private members' hour where they get a very limited amount of time on private members' business. However, it also happens at times for government business through unanimous consent.

Just recently, back in December, we can recall when conversion therapy legislation came before the House. It was so encouraging when members on all sides of the House said this was an important issue that was important to Canadians. The House, without any debate whatsoever, agreed to pass it through second reading and committee, the whole nine yards, and it was done unanimously when all it took was one member to say no to it.

In respect of other types of priorities in the past number of years, and particularly as a minority government, Canadians want us to and we want to work with opposition parties. Sometimes it has been the Conservatives, sometimes the Bloc, sometimes the New Democrats and at times it is even getting support from the Green Party representatives. It varies, depending on the legislation.

Like the conversation therapy legislation, the issue we are debating today is of the utmost importance. If we reflect on what this bill would enable, every member of the House will vote in favour of the legislation. The issue is when they want to have that vote.

We have critical supports for the coronavirus pandemic that still need to get through the House. This is yet another piece of legislation. Timing does matter. This is going to be a very busy week. We are looking to see if there are other partners with whom we can get the support to recognize the importance of the issue and, ultimately, to get the legislation passed.

Those people who are following the debate might ask why we do not allow for additional debate. Much like in the past, when other parties have recognized the importance of an issue, they will ask for unanimous consent to get that legislation through. Here we have an important piece of legislation that the Government of Canada wants to get through and has recognized as being important. If there were discussions in good faith that said we could get this thing through today because there is no other mechanism to guarantee its passage, I suspect we would have been open to that. However, we have to move this as well as other pieces of legislation. I am talking about the GIS legislation that is quickly coming before the House. We have to get this stuff through. We have identified it as a priority.

I am grateful that the New Democratic Party has also recognized the value of getting this thing passed quickly. At least the Bloc members are kind of halfway. They recognize the importance of rapid testing, but they do not necessarily want to support its going through as quickly as we would like to see it go through. As I said just before question period, I hope that members of the Bloc will rethink that.

Just because the Conservatives banter and cheer and do all sorts of weird things at times does not mean we have to follow their lead. There is an opportunity here to show what many members of the opposition were calling for not that long ago during question period, which is to show some leadership in recognizing just how critically important this legislation is to all Canadians.

From the very beginning of the pandemic, we have asked Canadians to step up. We all have a role to play. We worked with different levels of government to ensure that support programs were in place so that businesses would be in a better position to continue on and the number of job losses would be minimized. We brought in programs to support incomes for those Canadians who were unable to be in the workforce for a wide variety of reasons, as well as a multitude of direct supports to seniors, people with disabilities and non-profit organizations. We all came together to get us through the pandemic. Securing vaccines and vaccinating people has enabled us to be in the position we are today, with a great deal of hope and light.

The rapid tests are a critical part of our recovery, of getting out and beyond. We know that for a fact, because that is what the science and health care professionals are telling us, not only with respect to the federal government and the people we rely on, but also the provinces.

If we flash back to November of last year, there were tens of millions of surplus rapid tests in storage waiting to be used. There was no pent-up demand; there was a pent-up supply ready to be used. Once we experienced the omicron variant of the coronavirus, the numbers started to shoot up rapidly, and those rapid tests became absolutely essential. We stepped up, as we have done for Canadians since the very beginning. Tens of millions of tests that Ottawa was able to acquire were distributed. For the month of January alone, we had well over 100 million additional rapid tests. I would challenge any member of the opposition to tell me of a country in the world that has acquired more in one month, on a per capita basis, than Canada for distribution to its population. I do not believe we would be able to find such a member or country. It is possible I could be wrong, but I say that because I know how much this issue has been on the minds of the Minister of Procurement, cabinet as a whole and many other members inside this House. We saw the benefits. We realized how important these rapid tests are.

This legislation is absolutely critical to moving forward. If we did not bring the closure motion and do not pass this legislation, it would bring into jeopardy all sorts of things, either directly or indirectly, such as the legislation dealing with the GIS, not to mention anything else that might be coming up, including being able to support opposition days, such as I believe the Bloc has coming up on Thursday, or dealing with the short days on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Today is the day for us to have this debate, because this is legislation that is necessary in order for us to continue the fight against the coronavirus. I would like to see the Conservative Party be consistent, recognize the science, support the health care professionals, get behind the legislation, get behind the motion and recognize the importance of passing it here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the member for Winnipeg North and to debate with him.

Again, I totally disagree with what the member has said, especially with the motion today.

First, let me be clear. Do not get me wrong. We do support rapid tests. I know what I am talking about, because for the last year and a half here in the House of Commons, we have been asking to have rapid tests as soon as possible. Why? It is because it is one of the tools to get back to freedom, to get back to having more access to everything and to get back to a more so-called normal life, even if we know we will have to live through that period.

My question is quite clear. This bill could be adopted tonight because of this motion tabled by the government. It might be adopted at 2:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, but what would happen then? We would have to wait a full week before the bill could be tabled in the Senate.

My question is quite simple: What is the emergency today? Why not do it correctly, step by step, with the committee studying this $2.5-billion bill? That is the job we have to do here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is on the support for rapid tests from science and health care experts. The member should read what his colleague said earlier today, when he put into question whether we should even be listening to science and health care experts. He should review the comments from the Conservative member. They surprised a lot of us.

I have a deep amount of respect for the colleague who posed the question. He knows and is fully aware that in any given week, it could be a very tight agenda. For example, today is all about the rapid tests. We also have to deal with legislation in regard to the GIS. We also have an opposition day motion. Those are the three big days. Then Wednesday and Friday are short days. If we were to take the approach the Conservatives want us to take, we would be putting into jeopardy the passage of legislation that is needed today. I would encourage my friend to revisit the sense of urgency if in fact they support the need for rapid tests.

[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.

[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.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating supports for COVID and the impact COVID has had over the last two years in Canada. I am wondering if the member could comment on the lack of any ability by the government to admit its mistakes with some of those supports and admit that it did not get them right. So many things have fallen through the cracks.

I talked to the tourism people recently. There is a whole tourism package that is unavailable to seasonal tourism companies. How many tourism companies in Canada are not seasonal? Seniors have been stripped of their GIS supports. These are the poorest and most vulnerable of Canadians, and they have stripped of their GIS support because they were told to go on CERB last year. I could go on and on.

I am wondering if the member can explain why the government has been so reticent to admit its mistakes and fix them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak in the House a number of times and often referred to the fact that in the last couple of years during the pandemic, we saw the creation of a multitude of programs and supports. To say they were absolutely perfect would be misleading on my part, so I will not mislead.

Yes, we brought forward a suite of programs, and there has been the need at times to modify them. They were modified because we understood, after listening to Canadians, that we needed to make some adjustments. The Minister of Seniors just referred to one during question period in wanting to co-operate and provide additional funds for issues such as mental health and long-term care facilities. The list goes on in terms of the types of supports and investments we have made in health care over the last couple of years.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, coming into today's debate, I was under the impression that Conservatives thought that rapid tests were effective tools, but I could not help but take note of the comment that was made by the member for Cumberland—Colchester today. He represents the Conservatives on the health committee and is a doctor as well. He said, “we need to have a look at the science”. That is a direct quote.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can comment as to whether or not that sounds like somebody who believes that rapid tests are going to be useful in this pandemic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be kind. After all, the member for Cumberland—Colchester is a medical doctor, and we love our health care professionals for the fabulous work they have done throughout the pandemic.

That said, members on the government side or any Canadian cannot blame the Conservatives for giving different positions on the same issue at times. They have not been consistent. The quote that my colleague and friend just referred to highlights one inconsistency on a very important issue.

Science and health care experts are what we have been following and listening to since the beginning. The same cannot be said about the Conservative opposition party. Today some were questioning it. As the member pointed out, one was not only a medical doctor but also someone who sits on the health committee representing the Conservative Party. I do not get that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the manufacturer's booklet for the intended use of rapid tests. It says this test is “an in vitro diagnostic rapid test for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen...in human nasal swab specimens from individuals who meet COVID-19 clinical and/or epidemiological criteria.” In other words, regarding my colleague who earlier said today that we do have to look at the science, the manufacturer says this is accurate with people who have symptoms.

With the omicron variant, things have changed. For sure Conservatives believe in rapid tests as an important tool, but why do Liberals not want the motion to go to committee so we can get the most up-to-date science and spend Canadian tax dollars efficiently and effectively to help us all get out of this pandemic?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the package and I am not a doctor myself. At the end of the day, I am following the best advice that is provided to me. I would tell the Conservative caucus to feel comfortable in knowing that a vast majority of people recognize the science and the health care experts. Rapid tests are a good thing and we need to have them in our tool belt.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first Conservative speaker today talked about the science of rapid tests, and in his comments he implied that we need to have a study on the effectiveness of rapid tests. Given that the member who just spoke is the opposition House leader, I am wondering if he can expand on what the Conservative Party truly believes with respect to the effectiveness of rapid tests. Does the Conservative Party believe that they are, as science and health care experts say, the type of tool we must have? If so, would he indicate that there is no need to call into question the effectiveness of this particular tool?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was listening to what I said. I have been advocating for rapid tests since April 2020, a month after the COVID pandemic started storming around the world. I actually sent letters to the Minister of Health asking for the approval of certain types of rapid tests that had been approved by other blue-chip regulatory bodies, like the U.S. FDA and CE bodies in the European Union.

There is no question that rapid tests work; otherwise, they would not have been approved by Health Canada. However, that is not the issue here. The issue here is that we are debating a bill that the Liberals have dropped the hammer on, and it is a multi-billion dollar piece of legislation that at least requires some sense of scrutiny by MPs.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it always gives me great pleasure to listen to Conservatives talk about their support for workers. I mean, after all, this is a party that voted against pharmacare, voted against dental care and voted against establishing a wealth tax to level the playing field. Members of its caucus have been gleefully standing with the occupiers in Ottawa, who are harming small businesses and preventing workers from going to work. We have the receipts.

I have heard the member for Durham talk so much about how this country needs to get up on rapid tests, and we now have a bill that is going to authorize the federal government to provide the necessary resources to the provinces. I am just looking for some consistency from the member for Barrie—Innisfil. Could he explain why the Conservatives seem to be flipping and then flopping on this particular issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. I do not think I can be any clearer than that. However, we are saying that we cannot bring the hammer down. Our job as members of Parliament is to provide oversight and scrutiny on the money that is being spent by the government to make sure it is effective and make sure it is being spent in the best manner it can be. All we are asking for, and the only compromise I propose, is that we have one day to scrutinize this.

We were not going to hold up the bill. The Senate is not sitting until next week, so if the bill gets approved tonight, it just sits there for five days. What damage can be done by providing a little oversight or some scrutiny on a multi-billion dollar bill? It does not make any sense. We support the piece of legislation, but we also support accountability.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we see over and over again from the Liberals is that their measurement of success is how much money they have spent. They do not go back to the raw details about what actually happened. Here, again, we see a big dollar number. They are promising to spend a huge amount on rapid tests. It seems to me that this is a bit late and after the fact given that we have been calling for rapid tests for almost two years. Now, in the dying days of the pandemic, rolling out rapid testing does not seem like a good use of funds. I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have found with these Liberals is that they are always a day late but they are never, ever any dollars short. They have never found a problem that they cannot throw money at. However, it does speak to the issue of scrutiny. If the member recalls, we had four hours to deal with a $57-billion bill at one time during the pandemic. Again, as I have talked about several times in the House, this speaks to a pattern of overreach, a pattern of control by the government, instead of letting us do our jobs, especially at a point when the Senate is not sitting. To let us do our job is not an unreasonable request.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin debating this motion, I will briefly comment on the opposition motion we just voted on.

In my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and across this country, Canadians are losing hope. They do not know what to do anymore. They have been triple-vaxxed, they have followed all the rules and they are just looking for some transparency from the federal government so they can get their lives back. Canadians urgently need a plan to get us out of this pandemic—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated at the outset of his speech that he was going to start by talking about a matter that has already been voted on. We really do have to talk to this. Given the time constraints that have been highlighted by the Conservatives, I think it would be appropriate to stay on topic. He did say—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Actually, when he did start out, and I am going to continue on, he said that for a few moments he would mention this and then move to the rest of his speech. I think I heard him correctly, or I will stand corrected.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has the floor.

[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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I am starting to sense two different camps forming on the Conservative side of the House. There is one camp that thinks the rapid tests are completely useless. As the member said, in his home province they do not want them or need them. We heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester basically question the science of rapid tests, but then the leader of the Conservatives in the House, who spoke just before the last member, said that he believed rapid tests were absolutely necessary and that he actually plans to support this bill.

I am curious. Could the member who just finished speaking comment on whether he is going to support this bill, as his House leader is? If he is, why would he, given that he just finished questioning the fact that they were even needed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the member for Kingston and the Islands is misrepresenting what I said.

For much of the pandemic, when someone got COVID or thought they had it, they had to take time off work to get a PCR test. Frankly, we should have had rapid tests then, when that was the requirement of the Province of British Columbia. We are past that, but now the government is coming forward to say it will give people all these rapid tests. I wanted tests so that my wife did not have to take time off work. My neighbours wanted rapid tests so that they could go to work. That was the same in every community across the country.

Do not dismiss the public health officer of B.C., Dr. Bonnie Henry, who is changing her approach to dealing with the pandemic. Rapid tests still have a role to play, but not for the majority of the population, who are likely vaccinated and can likely self-isolate if they have symptoms of COVID-19.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is odd, sometimes, to try to make sense of various Conservative positions in the House.

I do think that rapid tests are very likely to continue to have an important role to play in the pandemic. I think it is prudent to try to have a number of rapid tests on hand across the country, lest there be another wave that requires us to again undertake certain kinds of public health restrictions we have had up until now.

I do not think we can declare an end to the pandemic by fiat. If we could, I am sure someone would have done so a long time ago.

It is reasonable to be prepared, and I think that supporting this bill is part and parcel of that spirit of preparedness that I have heard members on all sides of the House call for at various times.

I think the hon. member's concern about financial oversight is warranted. He mentioned Bill C-8, which also has money for rapid tests. In my work as a parliamentarian, what I have discovered and what the government has—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am really trying to keep everybody in the questions.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the New Democratic Party really does not think independently anymore. They just side with the Liberals on every single piece of major legislation.

What is also important to point out is that Dr. Bonnie Henry in British Columbia is not even counting the number of COVID cases anymore because it would not be accurate, for some of the reasons I have already listed. That is in the news.

It is time. The disease is entering an endemic stage. It is time for the Government of Canada to change its approach, and it is time for the NDP and the Liberals to wake up, stop wasting taxpayer dollars and start giving people their freedom back.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know one of the concerns we have as Conservatives with this bill is relative to the issues around accountability and whether the checks and balances are going to be there to ensure we do not have another situation where procurement is taking place and padding the pockets of former Liberal MPs, such as Frank Baylis, and other friends of the Liberal Party of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals have done everything in this pandemic to avoid accountability. I would be remiss if I did not recall one of their first acts in March, when the pandemic started two years ago. They wanted to shut down the House of Commons, because they did not want us to hold them to account. They threw it out there in the public, seeing what they could get away with.

At every stage of this pandemic, they have done as much as possible to avoid accountability, and that is why we cannot agree to closure. We need to study bills and respect taxpayer dollars.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before I move on, I just want to thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for reminding us that it is Valentine's Day. I know our discussions in here get pretty heated sometimes, but let us make sure we wish a happy Valentine's Day to all the folks who allow us to do the crazy jobs that we do here in the House of Commons.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish my wonderful spouse a happy Valentine's Day, and I would like to wish the member across the way a terrific Valentine's Day as well. He is a member whom I respect greatly.

Because we will not have a chance at committee, I want to ask a question that I might ask at committee if given the opportunity. This COVID endemic or pandemic could last for some time. Could the member let me know, if he knows off the top of his head or send the documents, when the rapid tests the government is going to purchase will expire?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South. He replaced a very good friend of mine, so I liked the prior member a bit more but I know he is doing the best job he can to represent his constituents. I congratulate him.

I will say this. Obviously, I do not know the expiry dates of the rapid test kits. My understanding is that they are quite lengthy. What is important is that, once they are received by the provinces, much like in the province of Ontario, they are distributed very quickly to the population and, most importantly, to vulnerable populations.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, and everyone else for that matter. Over the weekend, many people told me that they were not too happy that the government was shutting down debate in these circumstances. I guess that when a government does not believe in its own bill, it invokes closure.

In any case, I would like to ask my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge a question on vaccination efforts around the world. Canada does not exist in a vacuum, and, if we want to fight COVID-19, we will have to look beyond our borders.

What does my colleague intend to do to secure the logistical support needed for getting vaccine doses to developing countries and ensuring that those doses get there and are properly administered?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

If I understood the question from my hon. colleague correctly, the first and most important thing we need to do to help developing countries is to get them the vaccines to make sure their populations are vaccinated, because we know we can only fully emerge from this global pandemic globally, with all countries working together. Canada continues to do that and we will continue to go along that path.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to give a shout-out to my husband on Valentine's Day as well.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that there is a danger in all the rhetoric about freedom that we forget the people who are actually the real victims of COVID. As of last Friday, there were 87 people in the hospital in my community and 14 in intensive care. We were averaging two deaths per day and over 200 new cases. We have 22 outbreaks in long-term care homes. We are still delaying over 500 surgeries a week for things like hip replacements.

I know there is a lot of frustration about how long the pandemic has gone on, but would he agree with me that we have to keep in mind that some people are suffering the real impacts of COVID?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. He is absolutely correct. If we look at what the pandemic has caused and how we have tried to protect our health care system from the waves that have overwhelmed it, we know that most of those waves have been caused by unvaccinated individuals. Therefore, when we think about freedom, we need to think about both our collective and individual responsibilities, and we have a collective responsibility to get vaccinated and do the right thing to ensure the protection of our families.

Here in the province of Ontario, much like in British Columbia, literally tens of thousands of surgeries have been cancelled in order to ensure we protect our health care system from becoming overwhelmed. Those frontline workers who, for the last two years, we have asked so much from, I want to thank them for everything they have done.

Just to add very quickly, over the holidays my parents visited me from Vancouver. I had to take my father to the hospital twice. Thankfully, everything turned out all right, but just being there in the emergency room watching the frontline workers attend to people and do what they do every single day was proof that they are the real heroes of this pandemic.

[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.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish the member a happy Valentine's Day, but I am hoping he would join me and indeed join his caucus member, Joel Lightbound, in calling for a more—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would remind members to refer to members by their ridings.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would like to join his colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert. I too believe we can have a better level of discourse, one that has compassion and collaboration at its heart, not anger and division. Would he stand today and criticize the leader of his party, the Prime Minister, show some strength of character and tell the Prime Minister that we need better, we need a prime minister who does not divide but unites Canadians, as do other people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if we check Hansard, we will see that I have called on all parliamentarians, whether they be in this House, whether they be the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition or elected officials at provincial and municipal levels. It is incumbent on all of us to have a tone and discourse that is respectful and where we can agree to disagree.

I would agree with the member opposite that it is extremely important that we all have that collective responsibility, regardless of the title or role that we hold in this House.

[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, I thank my colleague opposite for her question. My microphone was not working because of technical difficulties before my speech.

With respect to health transfers, the government made promises during the election campaign. It promised to increase funding and enhance health care systems across the country, especially in Quebec. The government's plan is to provide that help to the provinces.

With respect to speeches in the House and other ways MPs communicate with the public, I think all Canadians are now tired of COVID‑19, but the government has to develop a plan for the days to come. I am confident this government will produce that plan in due course, but not in response to the opposition motion.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with making sure that people have the rapid tests they need to continue to address the realities of COVID, we know that in Canada we are still not seeing the investment that we need to support local businesses in being able to provide PPE and other necessary requirements for us to deal with these kinds of health concerns. That is unfortunate.

I wonder if the member could explain why the government is not taking that dedication and especially making sure that we are never in a place again like we were at the beginning of the pandemic when we could not even find the things that we desperately because they simply were not created in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises the importance of making sure that we have supplies and rapid tests in the days ahead because, although, yes, we are on the other side of omicron, the reality is that this pandemic could perhaps stay with us in the days ahead. There is not going to be a moment in time where we simply throw down the gauntlet and say we are done with the pandemic. Notwithstanding, I would argue that some members of this House want that to be the case, but that is not how it is going to work.

Our government, since day one, has been there to invest with the provinces and territories in supporting this PPE. As I mentioned earlier in the House to the member's NDP colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been working closely with a whole bunch of private sector players to make sure that we have vaccine capacity and PPE in this country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members will be disappointed to hear this, but I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

We are at a critical time in this nation's history. We hear a lot of, frankly, intentional efforts by other parties to misstate the Conservative Party of Canada's position, but I think it is important to put some clear things on the record about what we are proposing in terms of the response to this pandemic.

Number one, Conservatives oppose the federal mandates. That is why we put forward a motion calling on the government to put forward a plan to end federal mandates. Now, why do we oppose these mandates? It is because they do not make sense, because they are not rooted in science, because they do not help us fight COVID-19, and because they infringe on the rights and liberties of Canadians.

Let us talk about the truckers' mandate. These are people who work alone inside of their trucks. They have to abide by all provincial regulations when it comes to masking and accessing restaurants. Whatever the rules are in the province or state they are in, they have to abide by those rules just like everyone else. An exemption for truckers crossing the border was in place through the entire pandemic up until January, and then the government brought in this additional punitive measure, targeting these frontline workers who had served our country so ably throughout the pandemic and for a long time before. We oppose the truckers' mandate.

We have consistently called for vaccine mandates when it comes to air travel, train travel or the public service, and we have talked about legitimate exceptions for people so that they can have some level of autonomy and choice. That means getting a rapid test before getting on a plane is a reasonable alternative when it makes sense to have that in place. Many public servants throughout the pandemic have worked from home, so a vaccine mandate for firing people, removing people from their jobs, simply because they are making a personal health choice when they are already working from home just does not make sense. Conservatives have been clear on a position that I think is rooted in science and evidence in opposing these federal mandates.

The other thing that we as Conservatives oppose are the efforts by this government, in particular this Prime Minister, to demonize friends and neighbours who may have made different choices about their personal health. As other members have said, every person has their own story. Every person certainly has the responsibility to take the measures they can to protect those around them, but people have to make those decisions individually, and we do not believe in being the kind of country where people are compelled against their will or on pain of job loss to take a vaccination that they still have questions about.

I hear Liberal members now talking about the tone, about bringing down the temperature and about inflammatory comments. The Prime Minister of Canada asked the question, “Do we tolerate these people?” Those were the Prime Minister's words. He talked about not tolerating people. He will call all kinds of names and put in place any kind of policy measure to squeeze those who are making different kinds of personal health choices. It is not helpful, frankly, in persuading people about any issue, to try to demonize and “otherize” those who are making a different choice about themselves. Therefore, we oppose the federal mandates and we oppose the clear efforts by this government, as called out by members of its caucus, to polarize the conversation and demonize those who have made a different choice.

We have also said, and I have said consistently, that we support the right to protest and we support the message of those who are coming to protest on the issue of the federal mandates. Thousands of Canadians who have been forced out of their jobs, have lost businesses, are in a dire position because their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families are threatened, whose mental health is threatened and are experiencing things they have not experienced before have chosen to come and protest. Many have not ever come to protest before. We support the right of people to protest. We support people's message when it comes to saying that these mandates are fundamentally flawed, they are not based on science and they infringe on individual liberty.

At the same time, we have also been consistently clear in opposing the blockading of critical infrastructure as part of a protest. The great thing about the Conservative Party of Canada is that we have been entirely consistent in opposing blockading critical infrastructure in every case. We have called for additional legislative tools consistently for years when it comes to issues around blockading critical infrastructure, and it does not matter what the cause is. If the cause is federal mandates, if the cause is Idle No More, if the cause is opposing a pipeline, if the cause is trying to create a multi-heritage month—a cause near and dear to my heart—or whatever the cause is, people should not be blockading critical infrastructure. Conservatives have always said this—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

There are two parts to this bill, and it is a very small bill. One part speaks to spending money to purchase rapid tests and the other paragraph speaks to distributing those tests to provinces and territories. This member has not spoken to this bill at all during the five minutes that he has already spoken.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

To the member, I have given a lot of leeway to a lot of members in the House to speak their minds and of course to get to the motion that is before us.

I will caution the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to adjust towards the bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is eager to interrupt me, of course, because I am pointing out clearly the misinformation that has come specifically from speeches by members of the government during this debate. It is ironic that he would rise on a point of order to try to interrupt me when I am explicitly responding to things that members of the government have said. I know he is eager to come on my podcast, but this is not the way to do it.

Let me resume the point I was making, which is that Conservatives have been clear and consistent on the issue of blocking critical infrastructure.

Interestingly, immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, we had a situation in which critical infrastructure throughout the country was being blockaded, and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations met with the protesters and talked to them. He said it was important not to ramp up and escalate the situation, which is a tone completely different from what we are seeing right now. In contrast to that tone, we have said consistently that we support the message of those who are calling for an end to mandates and we recognize that many of the thousands of people who have come out across the country to protest have done so entirely peacefully. It is sad to see that those who have participated in blockading critical infrastructure are really, frankly, allowing the Prime Minister a distraction. The Prime Minister would much rather be talking about blockades than talking about his own policy failures when it comes to mandates.

Let us recognize that the blockades need to end. Let us also recognize that the failed mandate policies are really aggravating Canadians, and justly so. People are losing their jobs.

The other thing Conservatives support is science-based measures that respond to COVID-19 and take into consideration all of the costs and benefits associated with those policy measures.

Theoretically, we could say that we have to stop the spread of the virus, so everyone should just stay in their homes. However, there are many other costs to that approach, costs to people's livelihoods and costs to people's mental health. We have to balance these considerations against the risks associated with the virus. We have to recognize the variety of tools that are available and we have to recognize when the circumstances have changed.

We are dealing with a bill that is about the government spending additional money on testing. That is ironic, because at the very beginning of this pandemic, I and other members of the Conservative opposition were saying that we need to be focused on testing, that we need to get rapid tests out and available. We need to look to successful models such as South Korea, where there is widely available testing, phone booth-based testing and other measures. We need to look at countries in East Asia that have minimized the use of lockdowns and instead have focused on the use of testing and tracing tools to isolate where the virus is in order to stop it from spreading, rather than this policy of imposing generalized lockdowns because we do not have the testing or tracing capacity to know where the virus is.

Those are tools that were deployed successfully prior to the invention of the vaccination. Now the government is saying they have discovered that they should be investing all this new money into testing, and they are two years behind, just as they are two years behind in this issue of blockading critical infrastructure.

They should have been with us two years ago when we were talking about how people should not blockade critical infrastructure. They should have been with us two years ago when we were talking about the importance of investing in testing. The government has missed the boat on all of these issues and now wants to be patted on its back for being late to the game.

Conservatives recognize the value of testing. We also recognize that the vast majority of Canadians are vaccinated. Those who are not vaccinated are probably not going to get vaccinated. We should have tests available for people. We should give people the freedom to deploy various measures that they see as appropriate to protect themselves, but we should also have a plan in place to get back to normal. Recognizing all of the efforts that have been made and recognizing that provinces and other countries are winding down their restrictions, Canada should have a plan to do the same.

That is why we oppose federal mandates and oppose the efforts by the Prime Minister to demonize people who have made different choices. We support the right to protest. We oppose blockading and we want to see a realistic science-based approach that follows the things we are hearing from Dr. Tam and from provinces and other jurisdictions. They are saying that now is the time to be winding down the kinds of mandates and restrictions we have seen.

Now is the time to allow Canadians hope, to support our businesses, to support individuals and to give people the freedom to move forward without the constraints that we have seen for the last two years. It has been too long, and the government has been way too late. It is time for the government to have a plan to give people the hope they deserve.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic, we have been able to provide the provinces and territories with the necessary rapid tests, PPE and vaccines. What the provinces are asking for are additional rapid tests. This is based on the demand from provinces and territories. I myself stood in line during the holidays in the cold to get a rapid test because my family did catch COVID over the holidays, and I know that parents want to make sure they have a rapid test at home in case their child is exposed. What we are asking for is support for the provinces based on what they need.

Would the member agree that it is really important to give parents and those of us who want to visit loved ones in long-term care facilities that tool so that we can make sure not to infect someone if we become exposed?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the member, but here is the point: We were saying these things in the House two years ago, and the record shows it. The record shows that in my very first interventions in March 2020, I said to the Minister of Health that we should look at the countries that have been most successful at fighting the virus and do the things they did. I suggested looking at Taiwan, South Korea and countries that deployed this kind of testing and these tracing regimes, and those proposals were, at the time, dismissed by the health minister, who allegedly was the authority on all things science.

It is great to see this late-stage conversion. As we are likely moving out of the pandemic phase of COVID-19, it is great to see the government now say that testing is important, but I think we need to recognize the reality of what is happening here and the clear failure of the government to be on this train when it would have made that much more of a difference.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his speech.

I would like to return to something he said about the tone of the messaging. He specifically mentioned the Prime Minister's tone in relation to the protests. He is absolutely right to say that it was detrimental and counterproductive.

However, the tone chosen by people in his party all weekend long after last Thursday's debate conveyed misinformation. They said that the measures were coming to an end immediately, whereas the motion said that we wanted the government to adopt a gradual reopening plan that is based on science. This impeded the adoption of the motion.

I will remind the member that Bloc Québécois members voted for the motion despite all of this, because the motion was worded that way. I would also invite the member and many of the people in his party to stop trying to score political points with overheated rhetoric and instead stick to the substance if they want to make more progress on the issues.

Personally, I want results in the House. I would appreciate a response from my colleague.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I first wish to thank the Bloc Québécois members for voting for our motion.

It is too bad we did not have more support from other members in other parties.

The motion was clear in calling on the government to put forward a plan to end all mandates, and of course many Canadians would like to see that plan involve unwinding these mandates as quickly as possible, especially when many of these mandates were not based on science and did not make sense in the first place. There was never a reason to have this trucker mandate in place. They are people who work alone and had an exemption throughout the entirety of the pandemic up until January. These things were never based on science in the first place. The government has no data to justify its decision to say someone has to be vaccinated and that a rapid test is not a legitimate alternative for air travel.

These are the points we have made. I think it is legitimate and right for us to be clear and principled in opposing these mandates while not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Questions and comments. Let us try to get another quick one in here from the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear Conservatives talking about the blockades, I sometimes get the sense that they are kind of like the kid who was playing with matches in a hay barn and was then surprised that the barn burned down.

That said, the motion we have before us is trying to forward a bill very quickly that Conservatives have been calling for for over a year now, and I am wondering why the Conservatives are holding back on something that would allow provinces to get the resources they need so that we can quickly track where COVID is happening and give many families peace of mind.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing to see the NDP basically giving up all its principles as part of whatever deal it has with the government. The NDP used to understand very well the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and of a minister testifying about bills, and there should be opportunities to propose amendments at committee.

This is such a basic thing about how parliamentary democracy should function. All parties, except the Liberals, used to get it. Now the NDP has fallen head over heels for this nonsense that somehow, because we agree with the principle of a bill, we need to rush it through without any kind of study. This is ridiculous. We need to do our jobs as parliamentarians to study the legislation, see if it does the things it says it does, see if it works and subject it to a basic level of scrutiny. That is what we are paid to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to rise in this place to talk to the issues that are so affecting Canadians.

To be honest, I join this debate today with a conflicted heart, having just listened to the Prime Minister's press conference. Before members opposite jump up to call points of order to try to discourage a debate in this place, it is very relevant to the issue at hand.

I rise conflicted because we have a government that has shown itself time and time again to be, quite frankly, and I am going to compliment the government, good at politics. They are thanking me, but they have not heard the second part.

Liberals are good at politics, but they have shown over the last six years that they are not so good at governing. They are quick to take credit, but they never take responsibility. They are quick to divide when it benefits them and their interests, yet they refuse to show an ounce of humility or contrition, even though that is what true leadership is.

I stand conflicted in this place because I just listened to the press conference, where the Prime Minister of this country continued down the path of division and fear, using further inflammatory language. I spoke in this place, about two weeks ago, about how that was inflaming the frustrations and leading to the demonstrations in the streets. It was incredibly disappointing that the Prime Minister would continue down this path instead of acknowledging his failures.

Let us be clear that there are failures, one after the other after the other. There are failures regarding the pandemic. There are failures regarding the so-called fringe minority with despicable views. There are failures on every front, which has led to a country that has maybe never been more divided.

I have spoken a lot about that in this place. The members opposite think that is somehow playing politics, and that it is somehow okay to divide, conquer and segment different elements of Canadian society because it fits their political narrative, so they can win.

I am about halfway through the former attorney general and justice minister's book. This is probably going to trigger a whole bunch of Liberals. I am about halfway through Jody Wilson-Raybould's book and, acknowledging that she and I would disagree on a lot of things regarding policy and practice, what is interesting is that everything that we say is wrong with the Liberal Prime Minister and the way he governs this country is affirmed in the pages of that book.

It is why I say that the Prime Minister and the government are good at politics, but they fail when it comes to governing. The consequences of that are seen each and every day across this country. That is a shame for Canada. I hope and pray each and every day that those divides, and the scars being left on this nation, are not so deep and damaging that it is irreparable.

Those are strong words, but it is what I hear each and every day from my constituents, the people who sent me here and who I have the honour of representing. They feel left behind by these Liberals. I am going to speculate for a moment that the positions, talking points and carefully crafted messaging that come out of the government benches do not reflect the reality of what many of the constituents of those members across the way face.

I am not suggesting there is universal agreement on any of these issues. That would be a mistake the Prime Minister would make. No, I am suggesting there are differences of opinion, but in a democracy that is okay. In a democracy, that is what makes the strength of our discourse. Shortly after being elected, I had to spend much of my time fighting to ensure this place, the only place in this country where there is truly representation from every corner of the country, was able to sit.

I find the path that our nation is on to be incredibly troubling, when the Emergencies Act has been implemented, after 18 days, I think it was. The language the Prime Minister continues to use is incredibly troubling. There is no humility, no leadership, failure after failure, rhetoric inflamed daily in question period, accusations tossed out about members of the official opposition and even to those within their own party when there is disagreement there. I know that those members opposite are hearing a narrative that is very different than the carefully crafted one being amplified by a few political staffers in the PMO, who are bent on power at all costs. It is shameful, and our country is more divided for it.

We see a debate today on an initiative that should be able to unite Canadians, yet what I do find very interesting is, again, the rhetoric. They are trying to somehow blame Conservatives for doing our job. The Liberals need to be careful because Canadians are watching. We want to debate legislation. What I saw, time and time again, throughout the pandemic, was the Liberals would bring forward legislation and say that unless we gave it a rubber stamp, then somehow we were not Canadian enough and somehow we were not serving our constituents, whatever the rhetoric of the day was.

This place ensures the ability for scrutiny of legislation, for things like the rapid testing bill, with its two parts covering both the procurement and the transfer of rapid tests to our provinces. The Liberals have played politics with this, so they have invoked closure so the debate on this ends today. However, we have not heard the Prime Minister apologize for calling an election in the midst of a crisis that has divided Canadians even more. The fact that he lied about mandating—

Oh, my apologies.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Could the member retract that word? Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will adjust my language to simply point out the inconsistency of the Prime Minister's message prior to the election campaign. As my colleague from the Liberal Party in Quebec very effectively highlighted in the press gallery this past week, there was a real change in the Prime Minister's rhetoric in the days leading up to the election, which he had promised he would not call. I certainly know what that is, and I know Canadians watching do as well.

We want to see rapid tests in the hands of Canadians. We want to see the tools used. I never thought, prior to getting involved in politics, that I would invite local weekly newspapers to come to cover me getting my COVID-19 vaccination because I believed that was in the best interest of the country. However, to hear that the Liberals would somehow change their narrative to demonize the fact that we acknowledge there is not universal agreement on something, it speaks to how utterly ignorant and discriminatory, quite frankly, their rhetoric has become.

We have mandates being changed around the country, and the usage of things like rapid tests, which we are talking about here today, is a tool to help us move forward to learn to live with COVID, yet we have the Liberals who, instead of backing up and carefully considering a path forward, double down on failures and division. Now there is the invocation of the Emergencies Act. My constituents remind me often, because I am not old enough to remember the elder Trudeau when he was prime minister, and I know I am not allowed to say the name of the current, but I was referring to the previous, there are scars that this country has not healed from, from the elder Trudeau. I find it incredibly troubling that the Prime Minister is taking Canada down a path where I fear what the consequences will be.

Whether the Liberals are playing politics with the fact that we Conservatives in the official opposition want to do our job or playing politics with the fact that even though we may disagree on aspects of the pandemic response, we cannot find much agreement, instead of charting a path forward that would put the interest of Canadians first, the Liberals, again in this bill and everything they do, are dividing Canadians for their narrow political game, and that has to stop. For the sake of our country, that has to stop.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I flew into Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of sitting on the plane next to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot's wife. We had a wonderful conversation. This being Valentine's Day, I hope he has been in touch with her, as I have been with mine. It was nice getting to know his wife in that way.

The member touched on the election, and I want to let him perhaps expand on that. A lot of people in Canada watching at home think the election took up six weeks of time, but here we are in early February, and we are only just starting a lot of what Parliament has to get going. Six months were wasted for all the issues that are facing us, not just COVID, but also housing and the opioid crisis. I wonder if the member could take some time there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether Danielle is watching. I know she does not watch CPAC all day. I will thank my hon. colleague from B.C., as I do want to wish Danielle a happy Valentine's Day. I love her, and I am so appreciate of the support that she gives. I thank the member for that reminder, and this will be on the record for all time. I hope the member and his wife have been able to have an enjoyable time. My wife did comment about how much she enjoyed that flight from Toronto to Ottawa a number of weeks ago, and about how conversations, and this place, can bring people together, even when we have, in some cases, diametrically opposed ideological views.

That member highlights exactly the facts when it comes to the Liberals' claiming that there is urgency for this, and I do not disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the fact that, between prorogation and an unnecessary election, we are months behind where we should have been serving Canadians. Instead, the Liberals prioritize politics over the best interests of our country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly would never be the case that we have seen the Conservatives put politics ahead of anything in this country. I appreciate that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot understands that, in this place, people in glass houses should not throw stones. However, I want to agree with him that the Prime Minister should never have politicized vaccines as he did on August 15. I remember sitting there watching the launching of an unnecessary election and thinking, oh dear, this will go badly. We must not create wedge issues around public health advice.

Would the member reflect now on what we do as parliamentarians to hold this country together, as even within families, people are breaking apart? We need to hold together.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I have heard from families that are being torn apart by the divisiveness associated with many of these issues. The Quebec Liberal MP who spoke to the press last week articulated very well the division that has taken place as a result of some of the decisions that were brought forward.

I do not often talk about this, but over the election there were a number of instances when the police had to be called, on both extremes of the ideological spectrum in my constituency. If we listen to the Prime Minister and members opposite, they would say what the Prime Minister said in his press conference, which is that somehow there are only right-wing extremists, which I think were the words he used.

The consequence of division for political gain is division in our country, and we are seeing that each and every day. I would never be one to dismiss partisanship, and even its place within our parliamentary institutions, but it is absolutely essential that the priority always be serving Canadians, not our own personal self-interest.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to provide some comments on the motion before us, which puts a set of steps into motion that have to do with how to deal with this particular bill.

As I was preparing to do this and I was listening to the debate in the House for the last several hours, I could not help but wonder where it is that the Conservative concern comes from about passing this legislation so quickly. Almost every speaker who has got up to speak to this has spoken about a whole host of issues other than this particular motion, time after time. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did not speak to the bill at all. He did not even address it, but then in his comments afterwards he said—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would hate to follow in the member opposite's footsteps, but I certainly wonder what the relevance to the debate at hand is for what he is bringing forward. Specifically, if he is aware that the Senate is not even sitting this week in terms of the delay—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are getting into the throes of debate once again.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue and stick to what he can on the bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be addressing the comments that have been made during this debate, but unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who justified his comments by the fact that—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is supposed to be speaking to this particular motion. He has called out different members for talking about something other than what he thinks they should be talking about. In this case, all he can talk about is what we Conservatives are saying.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are starting to get into debate. I know we enjoy cutting people off here sometimes, but I am just hoping that we can get back to the debate at hand.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker who rose on a point of order clearly did not hear your ruling when you said that this was getting into debate.

I am going to address the comments I have heard during this debate but, unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who somehow justified his 10-minute speech that had nothing to do with this based on what he had heard other people say, I am not going to attempt to suggest that two wrongs make a right. What I have heard is a number of Conservatives talk about issues that are everything to do with what is going on right now, but not about this particular bill.

We heard the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan say, “We need to do our jobs” and that we need to be able to publicly scrutinize this bill, yet he did not even do that in his own comments. He did not try to scrutinize the bill. He did not bring up the bill once. I even rose on a point of order to ask him to talk about the bill and he would not do that, so I find that very perplexing.

The reason this is important to this debate is that the debate we are having right now is for a programming motion that relates to what happens to this bill that is before us regarding the rapid tests we are looking to acquire. It is extremely important. To me, at least, it validates the fact that this is important and there is very little argument coming from the other side as to why it is not important to move forward with this right now. The important part about this is that I have not heard anything about why we cannot move forward with this.

I know there are some Conservative colleagues out there who very much support rapid tests and were calling on the government to get them weeks ago. Now, suddenly, there seems to be this opposition and an attempt to slow down the actual process.

On January 5, the member for Durham, who colleagues may remember as the former leader of the opposition, said, “Before Christmas, it was like the 'Hunger Games' trying to get a rapid test in Canada”. That was just at the beginning of January when he said that. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable tweeted on January 12, “See! They have failed. Again. Lockdowns and restrictions are being normalized as a public health tools because of [the Prime Minister's] failure to secure rapid tests—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am enjoying this trip down memory lane. In fact, the member is correct that we did call for rapid tests two years ago, but I do not see the relevance here.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is the third point of order on this and I just want to remind members that there is some flexibility during the discussions before the House. On this particular bill, there is that flexibility. I will remind the member to make sure his speech speaks to the bill that is before the House, but we have to be mindful there is quite a bit of flexibility on the issues that surround this bill.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if you review Hansard, I am sure you will find that I am one of the few people who is talking about rapid tests during today's debate. I do appreciate the points of order though, because it gives me an opportunity to collect my thoughts.

On January 5, the member for Thornhill, the Conservative Party transport critic, sent a letter to the Minister of Transport asking that he consider rapid tests as an alternative to the new requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated. Here we have time after time Conservatives calling on the government to get more rapid tests and to do it as quickly as possible, yet today they seem to be in a position where they want to push back against that, delay it and slow it down as much as they can. The member for Calgary Nose Hill is quoted as saying, “We need immediate action to deploy widespread rapid testing for all Canadians”.

Conservative after Conservative, at some point in the last month or two, have been calling on this government to do this and to do it as expeditiously as possible. However, now we get to the point where we have a piece of legislation before us to authorize the government to make those purchases and in turn supply the rapid tests to provinces and territories, yet there is opposition from the Conservatives about doing this. I cannot help but wonder why. We have heard so many times about not politicizing things and not politicizing the debate on this. The Conservatives have said that repeatedly today, but they seem to be doing exactly that, which I find very confusing.

I want to address a point that has been brought up by a couple of Conservatives. The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon brought this up. He asked why there are two bills and why this was not put into the budget implementation act. I find it ironic, I must admit, that the Conservatives are now asking why we did not create an omnibus bill when they usually complain that we are doing that and we should not be doing that. There is actually a really simple answer for that. The answer is that the first allocation of funding in the budget implementation act was a result of the fall economic statement. In the fall economic statement, it was determined x number of dollars was required for rapid tests.

When the statement was delivered and when the bill was introduced and tabled, we had not yet become aware of the omicron variant and what that was going to expose the world to in terms of a new higher demand for rapid tests. Once that comes along and we discover we need more tests and the demand will increase, the default is that we need a new piece of legislation to get more rapid tests into the hands of the Canadian government so they can be deployed to the provinces and territories.

There is a very simple explanation for why this has been done in two different bills. The Conservatives want to paint it as some kind of sinister attempt to fool somebody or to try to trick people by putting this into two bills for some reason. This bill is very straightforward and it is very simple. There are two clauses. It does not even consist of more than three sentences in total. There is one sentence in the introduction, one sentence in the first clause and one sentence in the second clause. The first clause authorizes the Minister of Health to make the payments necessary to secure rapid tests. The second clause allows the minister to deploy those rapid tests to provinces and territories throughout Canada so that provinces can work to make sure that the supplies are available in terms of rapid testing.

I cannot help but wonder why there is this cry from across the way about division and political opportunity when we are literally talking about the simplest bill I have ever seen before the House in the six years I have been here. It is very straightforward. It could easily pass quickly and could be moved along so we can get those resources into the hands of provinces and territories.

However, we are still hearing the rhetoric from across the way that we have not delivered. This government has delivered millions of rapid tests and put them in the hands of the provinces and the authorities that distribute them. Wherever we can, we have made sure that there were opportunities for those who needed rapid tests to have them, paid for by federal dollars, essentially being paid for by all Canadians, which is what is so critically important when it comes to anything related to our health care.

This is a bill that specifically asks for that and we are being accused of trying to somehow sow division and a create political opportunity when this is the simplest bill and the easiest piece of legislation to understand. It really comes down, in my opinion, to whether or not Conservatives want them, yes or no. I have heard mixed messages from across the way all day long. The leader in the House for the Conservatives said, “Throughout the pandemic, the Conservative Party has consistently and persistently called for greater access to rapid tests for all Canadians.” He even went as far as to say that he supports rapid tests and this bill.

However, then I heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester question whether or not rapid tests are even effective and scientifically proven. He said, “I find it very unusual that it has now become an absolute urgency...without any consideration at all”. Let us not forget that this is from the same party that days and weeks ago called on the government to have these rapid tests yesterday. He then went on to say that this is without any consideration for “the changes in science we have seen in this dynamic situation.” He even said that there is a need “to have a look at the science”. The member for Cumberland—Colchester actually said that. One of the Conservative Party's senior representatives on the health committee said that. He is questioning the science of rapid tests.

This leaves me to wonder where the Conservatives are on this. Do they believe in rapid tests and think they effectively work or do they question the science, demanding that we look at the science of it, as though somehow the health committee of Parliament is going to better understand the science than the people who have authorized the use of these tests in Canada? I find it absolutely remarkable.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon said in his speech today, “in my province”, which is British Columbia, “the public health officer is telling us that, for the majority of the population, they are not needed anymore”. We have the Conservative House leader saying we need them, want them and support them, but Conservatives just do not like the way the government is doing it. We have the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan saying the exact same thing, but he never brought up in his speech the need for them or questioned this bill whatsoever. We have the member for Cumberland—Colchester questioning the science and validity of rapid tests, and then we have the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon saying they are not even needed anymore.

I am sorry if I am a little confused as to where the Conservative Party is coming from on this and if my default reaction, as usual, unfortunately, is to assume that its members are trying to play games, but their actions and words in the House only lead one to conclude this. I have been watching. I have been here for the entire debate and there is no absolutely no consistency. It is as though Conservatives are trying filibuster this and make it last as long as it can. That is not going to benefit Canadians, it is not going to benefit the people who need these rapid tests and it is not going to be a good partner with the provinces and territories that deliver these supplies across the country. At the end of the day, all it is going to do is slow this government down so that the opposition can say that we did not get them quick enough. I am sorry I end up at this place where I assume this, but it is based on everything that I have heard here today.

I appreciate the time to contribute to this debate today. I think these tests are absolutely critical to making sure we have the supplies in the hands of the provinces and territories, the health agencies they work with, and the various partners that will help distribute them.

As members will recall, a short six to eight weeks ago we did not know we would need this many tests. Suddenly we do, and we do not know what we are going to need six, seven or eight weeks from now. We need to make sure that we have these rapid tests in hand so if there is another variant like omicron, or something similar, we are prepared to make sure we can deploy rapid tests to the various organizations that will help us distribute them throughout the country.

I am very supportive of moving forward with the motion before us right now, which is to program the bill so that it properly gets to a vote later on this evening and so that we can pass it here, allow it to take its course and be passed by the Senate. Then we can get to a point where we can purchase these rapid tests and make sure they get into the hands of Canadians throughout the country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague for Kingston and the Islands. He talked a lot about what our members said, and that is fine. Those quotes are debatable if put into context.

I want to know what he thinks of the following quotes:

I can't help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government have changed drastically since the last election campaign. It went from a more positive approach to one that stigmatizes and divides people.... It's time to stop dividing Canadians and pitting one part of the population against another.

Those declarations were made a week ago by the Liberal MP for Louis-Hébert. What do you think of that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask him what he thinks of it. I am not going to tell the member what I think of it.

Again, I want to remind the member to address the questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I have certainly always enjoyed our discussions.

I just spoke for 15 minutes on this bill. The first question I got was not even about the bill, but about what another member of Parliament said, who is completely entitled to his opinion. It differs from mine, but it is what it is.

The point is that this bill today is about rapid tests, and whether or not we should expend the money in order to buy rapid tests so we can use them throughout the country. Just as with every speech before this, it is regrettable that the first question to come from the Conservatives to me is again about an issue that has nothing to do with the bill.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to make my colleague happy and speak about the bill.

I am going to tell him that we want these rapid tests and that we support this bill.

Madam Speaker, a member's mic is on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind members to turn off their mics when they are not speaking.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé may continue.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that I was going to make the member happy by talking about the bill and the rapid tests, which we urgently want.

I am also going to remind him that this is a federal initiative in health care and that the big problem during the pandemic was a lack of resources invested in our health care systems. In fact, that is why many of the restrictions had to be put in place.

I would like to know what he thinks. Does my colleague also feel uncomfortable with his government's position, which is to stubbornly refuse to make health transfers to the provinces and Quebec? Those transfers are truly needed. The Liberals should stop bragging about spending $8 out of $10 of the assistance provided. There was nothing extraordinary about that. Your government has the money, but you do not have the responsibilities.

Will the member undertake to work from the inside to change this once and for all and to transfer the necessary resources to Quebec?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I also want to remind the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to address the Chair and not the government directly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, at least it is predictable that a bill dealing with spending money on something health-related will generate a question from the Bloc about health transfers. At least that is more predictable than what I am hearing from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

I will say, in an attempt to answer his question, that this government has been focused on a holistic approach from the beginning. The hon. member mentioned $8 out of $10 coming from the federal government. The federal government has looked at itself as the leader, in terms of working with our partners. We have never, throughout this entire process, said that we were just going to hand over money to the provinces and let them fight COVID on their own.

We are going to do this together, and we are going to do it in a way that allows us the purchasing power we can get by working together, and that allows us the opportunity to properly make sure that every Canadian can be treated equally.

Can members imagine if we had all of the different provinces and territories fighting for rapid tests and fighting for vaccines? No. The approach has always been that we work together.

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

Madam Speaker, I always find that my hon. colleague is one of the most eloquent in the House, in his delivery style.

Of course, he highlighted what we have heard today in the debate, which is some of the inconsistency from the opposition party in terms of their views. I am wondering if he might be able to opine on that. Furthermore, what I have noticed in the House is that there seems to be a desire to think we can simply have a cut-off date and time, and say the pandemic is over.

My impression of this is that it is going to be a gradual reduction over time. I know that it is not completely within the contents of this bill, but the rapid tests are certainly going to be needed to keep people safe in the months and days ahead, as we start to wind down the measures.

Can the member opposite opine on that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point. Nothing would please me more than not having to wear these masks any more. I am sick and tired of it. I hate it. I hate having to walk around all the time wearing them. I hate having to remember to take my mask out of my car when I go into a store. I want this pandemic to be over just as much as everybody else does.

However, the reality of the situation is that instead of tapping into the frustration that Canadians have, which is what the Conservatives are trying to do, we are trying to use better judgment, in terms of listening to the experts and listening to people like Dr. Kieran Moore in Ontario. He says that we have to keep wearing the masks at least until the end of March.

I wish that Doug Ford would have come out a couple of days ago and said that we did not have to wear masks anymore, as they have done in other provinces. However, at least Doug Ford is listening to a revered medical expert who knows what he is talking about. I am willing to accept the fact that I have to keep doing this because, at the end of the day, as much as it frustrates me to wear a mask, how hard is it, really?

We might not like it. It might be an inconvenience. It might be a slight irritant, but to do our part, all we have to do is wear a mask and observe some other health measures. That is pretty simple, at the end of the day.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have a long and inexplicable wait in getting access to rapid tests in this country. I am as sympathetic as anyone to the fact that there could be bureaucratic delays, but I do not understand why this bill is only coming to us now.

Does the hon. member have any light to cast on this?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, to address the first point, I really hope that if we have learned one thing as a country through this, it is that we need to have the capacity in our own country to make the equipment during a pandemic. If we have learned one thing, it had better be that.

To her question or her comment about the bureaucracy and how long it has taken, what I can say about this bill and about all pieces of legislation that come through here is that it is constantly a fight to get a bill through the House. We are literally, right now, debating a motion about how to deal with this piece of legislation. There are only so many calendar days for the House to sit. There are pieces of legislation that are equally as important that have come down, and more that will be coming.

I am quite frustrated from time to time about how long things seem to be taking, but that is all the more reason to move quickly with a piece of legislation that contains two paragraphs. It is pretty easy to figure out if someone is for or against it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to indulge my hon. colleague from the other side to keep this on point. Probably the most baffling thing to me is why we even have a programming motion on this particular bill. We raised the issue of rapid testing and having rapid tests nearly two years ago, in April of 2020.

Today we are bringing this up, and there suddenly seems to be a mad panic for rapid tests. We have been calling for rapid tests for nearly two years. Something has not significantly changed, in my mind, that suddenly today, of all days, rapid tests should be the thing we talk about in this place.

There are a host of other things going on in this place that we perhaps should be talking about, but here we are talking about a programming motion on a bill to approve rapid tests.

Could the member please explain to me what the issue is with the rapid tests that makes this so important today?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we stop talking about it and we sit down, as I am going to do in a few seconds, the debate can collapse, we can vote on it and we can move on to the next item. I do not think that is going to happen, because Conservatives have been getting up and talking about everything but this motion.

My response to my colleague across the way is this. Why do Conservative members not actually talk about the piece of legislation that is before us right now? If they do not want to talk about it, they should let it collapse so we can vote on it and move on.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech this afternoon. I especially want to thank him for having the courage to tweet about the blockade and about how important it is for all parliamentarians to work together to end it.

I am not the government House leader, but I would like to ask my colleague a question about the urgency of this motion.

The Prime Minister has announced emergency measures, and these measures need to be debated in the House this week.

Perhaps the government wants to pass this measure now in order to make room for debate on emergency measures at the next sitting.

Does my colleague support the government's decision to bring in the emergency measures?

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, members will forgive me if I thought I was sitting in Queen's Park, because a lot of the elements that my hon. colleague talked about are within the provincial domain. Tying it back to this legislation, this is something that provincial and territorial governments are calling for. This is going to be a crucial measure. Unlike some members of this House who think there will just be a time when COVID will stop being a thing, we will gradually be winding back measures, but active testing is going to be a part of that. Provincial and territorial governments are calling for that.

It does not seem like the member supports the expenditure the government is proposing to help provinces and territories. She mentioned her mother in long-term care. Does she support the $1-billion measure the government put in the last budget to support better outcomes in long-term care, or was she against that as well?

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

Madam Speaker, the member would be really sorry if he ever met my mother, because she is definitely not in long-term care, and she would be deeply offended that he thinks she is in long-term care. I never said that. I said she went to the hospital.

Absolutely, these measures are provincial, and that is what this whole motion is about: transferring money to the provinces. Why are we not transferring money that can actually solve the problem? Get more health care workers, get to the root of the problem, help hospital capacity manage patient load and off-load onto mental health resources. That is what I am asking.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think this is the first time I have had the opportunity to ask the member for Peterborough—Kawartha a question in this place. I would like to congratulate her on her election.

I understand that it is not in the interests of a person who has been double-vaccinated to make sure they have access to rapid tests. I understand that it is in the interests of protecting my grandchildren, who are not vaccinated yet. I wonder if the member has any comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words on our first exchange.

I heard an infectious disease doctor on the CBC this morning doing an interview and he had a great point about assessing our individual risk tolerance, learning to live with COVID and doing things that help with our personal protection. I think it is absolutely critical that when we go to visit grandma, grandpa or somebody who is at high risk, we have honest conversations with them so that we are making sure they feel safe and we feel safe and that we have have what we need to make everybody safe.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her debate this evening. This is an important topic.

I wonder if she has some comments, being new in the House, about the process of democracy and the importance of what we are doing here in the House. That will perhaps educate our colleagues about the importance of this and how much it comes to bear on Canadian citizens, especially at a time when our Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for such an excellent question. It is the best question I have been asked yet.

For those of you who may not know, the member who asked the question is a doctor and worked on the front lines of COVID. Earlier today, I heard a member opposite question whether he thought these measures are scientifically valid, and nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that science and medicine are fluid, and to have really good discussions, we need to go to committee.

To the member's point and question, we cannot expedite something so serious, with this level of investment, without doing the research and bringing in experts from all levels. Medical officers of health and health experts are critical, but they look at one section: public health. We need to be looking at economic impacts, mental health impacts and social impacts. These are big when we make decisions. That is what our job is here, and that is what democracy is. It is to hear everything. We cannot just push something through because we think it is best. We are here to represent all Canadians.

[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.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the floor are such great proponents of these rapid tests, and it is interesting because they are important for the country. If the Liberals really feel comfortable with the science, I wonder if the member opposite could clearly communicate the sensitivity and specificity in asymptomatic individuals who get a rapid test. What is that and what does it mean to people?

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

Madam Speaker, these rapid tests are incredibly important, and as I mentioned in my speech, they are to be used to curb the spread, the transmission, of COVID. When someone is asymptomatic, it does not mean they are incapable of spreading the disease to others who are vulnerable, such as children, seniors and people with underlying health conditions. These are things we must take into account. Just because someone is asymptomatic does not mean they cannot infect someone and bring some real harm to their lives. People have ended up on ventilators and very sick, with long-term COVID symptoms that are ongoing, and it is up to us to be responsible and make sure we protect not only ourselves, but our loved ones and others around us to protect society, to make sure Canadians are safe and to be a community.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are in the fifth wave of this pandemic and Canadians are fed up with all the restrictions they have been facing. These restrictions are in place for good reason, but we have to support the businesses and workers who have been suffering. Many of these sectors have fallen through big cracks.

I wonder if the member could comment on some of the sectors that everybody else and I have been lobbying for to get these changes that the government seems reluctant to make. I am talking about people like independent travel advisers, who are making nothing. I am talking about a lot of companies in the tourism industry that cannot apply for tourism supports because they are seasonal. Most tourism companies are.

Could the member explain why the government seems so slow and so reluctant to respond to their questions?

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

Madam Speaker, the government is not slow and it does recognize the need to protect our businesses, and we are protecting them, and we have been. Throughout the pandemic, our government provided supports to small business owners and independent operators to make sure they too could continue to survive. As my hon. colleague mentioned, it is important that we also continue to do things to stimulate our economy, but not at the risk of bringing further harm.

We saw experts and Dr. Tam mention that very soon—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia may have a brief question.

[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 would like to thank my colleague. I will provide a brief answer because we are out of time.

We must listen to the experts. As Dr. Tam said, we were ready to reopen, but because of the omicron variant, we saw the number of hospitalizations, cases and deaths spike. No one was prepared for how huge this wave would be, but the government is here to reopen and to start getting things back to normal. It will take a bit of time, but it will happen.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10.

COVID-19 continues to be part of our lives, which we all know, and testing and screening remain important tools. They allow us to rapidly detect and isolate new cases. They support contact tracing and they help prevent community outbreaks by breaking the chain of transmission. As we have been, we continue to be committed to supporting the provinces and territories' testing strategies. These are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but our job is to support.

A critical part of finishing the fight against COVID-19 is making sure that we continue to prevent outbreaks at schools and workplaces. The $2.5-billion investment to purchase and distribute rapid tests across the country that is contained in this bill would ensure the delivery of millions of rapid tests to provinces and territories and indigenous communities free of charge and continue to support screening programs through our various distribution channels. Rapid tests are safe, they are effective and they are easy to administer. They provide quick results and they will empower Canadians to make more-informed decisions to protect their health and the health of their loved ones.

As all members know, rapid tests represent only one element in the tool kit to fight this pandemic. This bill therefore represents a continuation of the kinds of measures that we have implemented and will continue to implement, measures that are based on the best public health advice and scientific evidence.

Since the start of this pandemic, Health Canada has put in place rapid, innovative and agile measures to ensure prompt access to medical devices to respond to the needs of Canadians. The department has worked closely with public health partners to ensure that applications for COVID-19 testing devices are prioritized to meet urgent public health needs. These measures have allowed Health Canada to authorize over 100 testing devices, including 10 self-tests and 27 tests that can be used in a point-of-care setting.

Health Canada is also expediting the review of all treatments for COVID-19. The department has rapidly authorized several clinical trials in Canada, including for some vaccines being developed right here in Canada, without compromising on strict standards for the safety of clinical trial participants. Clinical trial regulations allow the investigation of new drugs or new uses of drugs while affording protection to participants and requiring the proper collection and retention of outcomes.

As of February 9, 115 clinical trials for COVID-19 drugs and vaccines have been authorized in Canada. Health Canada has authorized five drugs to treat COVID-19, including Remdesivir for hospitalized people, as well Paxlovid and three biologic treatments for non-hospitalized folks who have mild or moderate COVID symptoms and are at risk of developing severe disease. The Government of Canada has procured many of these treatments and continues to engage proactively with domestic and international companies to negotiate advance purchase agreements and ensure timely access in the procurement of treatments.

As we know, vaccination is one of the most effective tools that we have to combat the pandemic, and along with the availability of rapid testing, it will play an important role in protecting our supply chains and helping us to get to a point where the pandemic is behind us. Governments have an important responsibility to protect the health and safety of their citizens. That is what we have done since day one. This responsibility becomes especially critical in the face of a public health emergency such as the one we are in right now.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the government has committed to making decisions that are based on science and based on the advice of public health officials. The government has implemented many critical measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians, including federal public servants. As the employer of the federal public service, it is the government's role to set the conditions for those employees to be safe when they are called upon to provide those services. Last October, we implemented a policy requiring that all employees of the core public service, including the RCMP, be vaccinated. This requirement applies to all employees, whether they are working remotely or working on site. It also applies to contractors who require access to federal government work sites.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce means that not only are work sites safer, but so are the communities in which these public servants live and work. It also means better protection for Canadians who are accessing government services in person, including, in particular, the more vulnerable members of our communities.

The vaccination requirements within the transportation sector have helped to protect our transport system from the impacts of omicron by reducing the frequency and severity of the COVID-19 illness among transportation workers. As we have done throughout the pandemic, we have worked closely with our partners in the transportation sector, including industry, to implement the vaccine requirements and to ensure the overall safety of the transportation system. These partners have played an invaluable, critical role in ensuring that people, goods and services continue to move in a safe and secure manner. Transportation workers have done their part by getting vaccinated and helping us all get through this pandemic.

I want to reiterate that the Government of Canada's top priority is the health and safety of all Canadians. To protect Canadians, the government has taken every measure at its disposal to protect citizens. I know that it has not been easy. The pandemic has had an undeniable impact on Canadian businesses, large and small. Canadians have been patient. They rolled up their sleeves. They did their part to protect themselves, to protect others, and they got vaccinated.

We recognize that this pandemic has created anxiety and additional stress for many Canadians. While we are all fatigued, we are also hopeful for what is to come. We are not where we were at the beginning and we can look forward to a brighter future. The measures that we have put in place, opportunities to be able to access rapid tests like the ones we are making available through this bill, will make it possible for us to look toward a bright future.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle seem to think tests are of great import. They talk a lot about the science. My question is this: What is the danger with a rapid test that has a very, very poor sensitivity rate?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague notes a very important point here. I think it is important for us to recognize that this is one tool in the arsenal and it is not a silver bullet, but rapid tests make it possible for us to have a baseline of information that we may not have had otherwise. It gives us an additional piece of information from which to make informed decisions. They add a layer of information that then makes it possible for individuals to make decisions for themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I will ask him the same question I asked his colleague just a few minutes ago. We are more or less in favour of this bill. It is rather simple and short. Quebec and the provinces are in need of rapid tests, but they also have other health care needs. The health care system has been weakened by the pandemic. Our health care system took a direct hit from the first wave. The system is in serious need of funding, and the federal government has responsibilities there.

Can my colleague tell me when his government will start negotiating with the provinces and Quebec regarding health transfers?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is a pleasure to work with her as well.

We recognize that we need to work with the provinces and territories to improve our health care systems. We will work together. We all know that COVID‑19 has added another dimension. We will have to look ahead and consider how we will work together to improve and strengthen our health care systems. We will work quickly with the provinces to do so.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to elaborate a little bit in terms of the need in his home province for these rapid tests. I myself know that in the province of Quebec it was pretty tough to get them during the Christmas holidays when the peak of omicron was hitting the province.

Why is it so important to support the provinces and territories with respect to the need for these rapid tests and for them to be able to deploy them?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, access to rapid tests in British Columbia has been virtually impossible over the course of the last little while. I can say from personal experience that over the course of the Christmas holidays it was a source of anxiety for many of my constituents who wanted to know, at the very least, whether they were going to be able to take some kind of test for their small and limited Christmas holiday gatherings to be safer and to give them even a limited sense of confidence regarding the decisions they make.

We know these tests are not perfect, but giving folks the ability to know if in fact they have tested positive, to go for secondary testing and to access the supports they need is critical. In our province of British Columbia, being able to have access to rapid tests is going to make a world of difference for schools, community organizations and so many others who will be able to benefit as a direct result. I am very hopeful that we will be able to move the bill forward and get rapid tests into the hands of the folks who need them in British Columbia, and Vancouver Granville in particular.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. This large riding is home to many communities. It is also a very beautiful riding that I have been able to visit a few times.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that this is the evening of February 14 and I would like to say hello to my girlfriend. I want to let her know that I am here for a good reason today, which is to participate in this important debate.

Why is this debate important?

We are debating Bill C-10, which is not to be confused with the government’s defunct broadcasting bill. In fact, this Bill C-10 seeks to allow the government to spend $2.5 billion to buy and distribute rapid tests to the various Canadian provinces, and obviously to Quebec, which we wish were not a province.

We might be tempted to say that this seems fairly uncontroversial and few people people would object to having access to tests. Such a position would be irresponsible.

However, this goes far beyond simply being for or against spending $2.5 billion on rapid tests. I think that debate would be a short one, or at least it would be for us. That may be why the government did not want us to study the bill in depth and chose to issue a gag order. That may be why it did not want us to dig deeper. If we were to dig deeper and look closer, we might start questioning why the federal government needs to pump extra money into the provinces and Quebec, which need it to deal with the pandemic.

We are talking about an additional $2.5 billion, which seems to have come out of nowhere, and the federal government is swooping in with this money like Santa Claus or a superhero. They want to show just how wonderful, generous and excellent they are. We all know, however, that that money is our tax money. It did come from somewhere, namely our own pockets. We are all paying.

Quebec's health care system is short on money, and the same is probably true for the health care systems in the other Canadian provinces. That is why this bill calls for deeper consideration. Even though the federal government keeps bragging about how amazing it is, every time we ask if there is going to be more money for the health care system, it tells us it spent money like never before during the pandemic.

First, I do not know if that is something to brag about. I think spending like never before is not something to boast about. What the government should be boasting about is fixing problems. Unfortunately, they are still not fixed. The pandemic is still here. I do not blame the government entirely. I think this is a global issue.

That does not change the fact that underlying problems resurfaced with the pandemic, are still not fixed and will have to be addressed someday. For example, we could talk about vaccination capacity, which is nearly non‑existent. We used to have a thriving pharmaceutical industry in Quebec a few years ago. It has all but disappeared. Traces of it remain in my riding and on the north shore in Montreal, but it is nothing compared to what it used to be.

The irony is that, recently at least, the federal government keeps trying to tell us how Quebec should run its health care system. When there is a disaster and everything is going wrong, it is easy for it to say that it could have done better. However, when we look at things properly, we might wonder if it really would have done better.

Consider one of the things the federal government is supposed to look after in case of a pandemic or catastrophe: the national equipment stockpile. It is not as though the pandemic was something that nobody could have ever predicted, and yet when the government opened up the stockpile, it turned out all the equipment was expired. Imagine if Quebec hospitals managed things like that. It would be a bad situation.

We really cannot count on the federal government, nor can we count on it to fund our health care system adequately. Quebec's health care system was really put to the test. A lot of people say the system is struggling. It is in trouble. Things are bad.

If we want to get to the root of the problem, we need to talk about the federal government's financial contribution. In 1958, the federal government covered 50% of health care costs. In 2022, it covers about 22%. There is a big difference between 50% and 22%. They are not even close. Even so, the federal government will not stop talking about how great it is. When we ask the government when it will give us money for health care, it says it has spent more money than ever during the pandemic. When we look at the actual numbers, the federal government's share of health care funding has been shrinking steadily. That is a fact. Let us look at the real numbers. The government says it is putting more money into health care. Sure, it has increased funding annually in constant dollars, but if we look at the proportion of health care costs, the answer is no. It has not kept up. The government did this knowingly.

Members will recall the budgets of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien from a time not all that long ago. I had not yet been elected, of course, but that did not stop me from taking an interest in politics. At least I was born already. It is not such a distant memory for many people. Members will recall both Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, rubbing their hands together, practically giddy, when they realized they could balance their budgets by reducing transfers. As a result, on the receiving end of that plan, the provincial and Quebec governments have been struggling ever since. They have had to bring in their own austerity measures, because the federal government is starving them of funds.

Jean Chrétien liked to brag about it. In interviews not so long ago, he said that making budget cuts made him look good, and that the world was angry with Quebec. Unbelievable. That is when people began seeing the problem.

When people go to the hospital and have a hard time getting good care, they get angry and upset. The Quebec government manages health care, but people forget that a large part of it was funded by Ottawa. I say “was” because that “large part” keeps shrinking, and this is causing more and more problems.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for an increase in health care funding to 35%. We are not even asking for 50%, but 35%. It is not huge, but it would make a huge difference in the care people receive. It would make quite a difference.

Instead of patting itself on the back every time it spends $5, the government should sit down at the table and tell us what it can do to really change things and address existing problems. That is where the government should be heading, rather than looking for every possible way to starve and drain the provinces and the Quebec government, all of which need help. The feds brag about working miracles, when all they are doing is sticking band-aids on a wound that is not healing.

Naturally, with all these cuts to the federal government's contribution year after year, our health care system suffered during the pandemic. Every time that a slightly stronger wave arrives, or every time that case counts rise, the health care system becomes overloaded and can take no more. We could talk about this to all health care workers, who have had enough. They would like to be heard a little and helped. That is why we are speaking out today. We are telling the federal government that it is time to come to the table.

I was elected in 2015, and I believe that the Bloc Québécois has talked about health transfers constantly since then. It is a big problem, and it will only get bigger, because health care costs continue to grow, yet the federal government's contribution continues to shrink. That is not right, and that is why the Bloc Québécois has been joined by Quebec and all the provinces of Canada in asking the government to increase health care funding. Sometimes Ottawa is hard of hearing when Quebec speaks, and even more so when the Bloc Québécois speaks, but once in a while, the message does get through.

All that is to say that we are not giving up. For that reason, we have proposed a summit on health care, so that the federal government comes to the table and we finally solve the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, the question around rapid tests has been a significant one.

In the province of Alberta, it actually took the provincial government taking their own initiative and requiring, I believe and I could be corrected, an exception from Health Canada in order for them to even procure these rapid tests. I find it interesting that we are debating this. It is an important tool to fight COVID, yet it seems like it is maybe a little late when these have been called for, for a very long time.

I wonder if the member would have further comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I am not familiar with the measures in Alberta or with how the Alberta government chose to manage the pandemic.

What I do know, though, is that the way the Conservatives want to combat the pandemic is, essentially, to lift public health measures. I have a harder time with that because I do not think the pandemic is over. We need to send the message that this is still serious, that the blockades outside Parliament need to stop and that people need to peacefully make their way home. The lockdowns will ultimately be lifted, but for that to happen, we need to start by getting the pandemic under control.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think I definitely would agree with my hon. colleague that Bill C-10 and, of course, the motion that is shepherding it through the House in a fairly rapid fashion do show evidence of how quickly the federal government can move, when required, to bring in basic health policy.

I would agree with him. Now is the time if we are to learn any lessons from the COVID experience. We have to think about the legacy we will leave for future generations in Canada's health care system. Maybe if my hon. colleague could talk about the legacy system and about how this is really our opportunity to show that leadership and to show people right across the country and in communities everywhere that we need to leave them the health care system they are very much deserving of.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that if we want to go further, we will also have to think about why there is a desire to increase health care funding. It is because we, as a society, chose to ensure that all Quebeckers and Canadians can access health care without being forced to sell their home or take on lifelong debt just because they got sick once or twice and went through some tough times. It can be stressful and extremely difficult on families when one member has to stop working because of a long illness.

We must continue to work together to ensure that our health care system reduces social inequalities. We must ensure that everyone has access to care and can have good quality of life, free from undue stress if they become ill.

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

Madam Speaker, I somewhat agree with what I am hearing today. Yes, we must act quickly, but the government should have been more forward-thinking when it announced certain budgetary measures. I think the technology of rapid tests was already known, and we should have known that we would need more of them quickly.

Does my colleague agree that the government should have acted more quickly, but without imposing closure, as it is so apt to do to skip over the normal legislative stages of a debate?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises an excellent question. What we have been seeing since the beginning of the pandemic is that the government seems to be making everything up on the fly. When it has the opportunity to make decisions for the long term, it chooses to call an election or prorogue Parliament.

Essentially, it is not really willing to delve into certain issues or do things properly. It would rather shove decisions down people's throats as quickly as possible so they do not have time to think about it, analyze it or ask questions. It is a shame that the government is taking this approach.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy St. Valentine's day to my partner, who is lovingly supportive of my involvement in politics, as well as to my colleagues of all stripes in the House, and to all the people of Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, especially.

We urgently need the federal government to commit to increasing health care funding for Quebec and the provinces from 22% to 35%. That would make everyone, especially seniors, very happy. That should not come as news to anyone.

There is nothing wrong with spending an additional $2.5 billion on rapid tests, but this is exactly the kind of enticement we are all too familiar with. The government often uses such thinly veiled tactics to win people over. What people really want, however, is federal health transfers that are adequate, adapted, indexed and planned for the long term.

What has happened in recent years has been a nightmare, and the nightmare only became worse with the pandemic. I keep telling myself that we are going to wake up from this bad dream. As the saying goes, everything is connected to everything else. Today we are witnessing the frustrations of a certain segment of the population here on Parliament Hill and across the country, and while we have been hit hard by the pandemic's toughest waves, it is not because Quebec and the provinces lack the leadership or the skills to maintain an effective and functional health care system. Our expertise is more than sufficient.

We are lacking the resources to get through this. What is lacking is adequate federal funding. Imagine how different things would be if successive federal governments since 1958 had lived up to their responsibilities in health care. Imagine managing health care without constant cuts, suffocating reforms and restrictive measures, which in the long run cause people to steer clear of nursing programs. Imagine that there is no shortage of home care services, no triaging in hospitals, no psychiatric departments being closed, no striking workers and no pressure tactics motivated by inadequate wages and unsustainable conditions.

It is reasonable to conclude that had past federal funding been adequate, Quebec and the provinces would have had enough money to properly maintain their health care services, implement technological development tools and use forecasting tools for recruitment, training, hospital and paramedic services, and home care for an aging population, and better prepare for a potential health crisis.

There is also a wide range of community services and supports for caregivers, the homeless, psychological support and suicide prevention that would have benefited. In short, if there is one thing that we absolutely must take away from this pandemic, it is that health is the number one priority for the public as a whole and that the government has a duty to act on the public's priorities.

Unfortunately, since 1958, all the wonderful people in health care have had to keep coming up with ways to make up for the lack of federal funding, with the help of countless volunteers who I wish to sincerely thank. These volunteers go all out to help foundations, produce telethons and organize fundraisers with spokespeople who are usually from the arts sector and are always generous. The public has also rallied to compensate for the many shortfalls that have multiplied all these years. This has all served as a stopgap to counter the inertia, denial and indifference shown by the federal government since 1958, no matter which party has been in power, I would add.

The Bloc Québécois represents Quebec's social democracy, offering hope for an education system and universal public health system that are worthy of a G7 country.

Quebec and Canadian taxpayers get up in the morning and go to work wanting to participate in society because they believe in it. They believe that it is the right thing to do. If we make them feel like their efforts are worthless, that their taxes and money are not worth anything; if, the more they are taxed and after years of taking their lumps and staying the course, they see that their efforts are in vain because they met their obligations, but the government did not do the same, then we end up in the situation we are in now: an impasse.

Not everyone is out in the streets. Not everyone sees themselves in this muddled mood with mixed messages and demands, but many are at home deeply disappointed about the current situation and the federal government's crisis management, simply because federal money is not getting to the right place in the right way. They are losing confidence, quietly disengaging and becoming cynical. Is that a shame? Yes. Is it surprising? I hope not.

Of course not everything is black or white, but there is no denying that the impoverishment, the fragility, of our health care system is directly linked to the fact that the federal government is not paying its fair share to Quebec and the provinces. There is very clear evidence of cause and effect.

I would add that the reason we have to keep maintaining, then easing, and then reimposing health restrictions is not just because a handful of individuals refuse to get vaccinated, despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits of vaccines. It is also because our health care systems are unable to absorb the unexpected number of patients created by the pandemic.

With vaccination rates close to 90%, we might have expected to be getting out of the pandemic or at least have the end in sight. However, we are missing two essential, critical ingredients: a government willing to participate actively and fairly in the global vaccination effort, and robust and well-funded provincial and Quebec health care systems. Right now, we have a health care system that is broken.

Even though the vast majority of people are not out in the streets protesting right now, it does not mean that they are satisfied. People are fed up, but they still hold out hope for something better.

To those who are disillusioned and worried, to neglected and injured seniors, I say this: As long as I am standing here in the House, I will never stop defending the French language, their values, and their interests, and supporting their plans and their brilliant ideas.

My father used to say that there is nothing harder than to wake up someone who is not sleeping. If the federal government wants to spend $2.5 billion to provide rapid tests to Quebec and the provinces, fine. However, if it is still using this fragmented and unsustainable support to justify refusing to increase health transfers to 35%, I would say that it has totally forgotten the whole point of politics, which is to serve.

I would add that the best Valentine's Day gift we could give the public right now would be to agree to have the government commit to paying Quebec and the provinces their fair share of health care funding. If the government ends up refusing to meet its obligations, I would say that there is nothing harder than to wake up someone who is not sleeping.

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

Madam Speaker, we will have to agree to disagree with the Bloc on the whole issue of health payments. I believe the federal government contributes its fair share, and we continue to contribute in different ways.

Having said that, I am glad Bloc members seem to want to support the bill, but along with their friends in the Conservative Party, they are not recognizing the sense of urgency for the legislation. In the past, the Bloc would have recognized the urgency given the very nature of rapid tests. Why would the Bloc not support the importance of getting this bill through in a timely fashion by supporting the closure aspect of the motion today?

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

Actually, I think the parliamentary secretary and I do not have the same concept of what urgent means.

It is not urgent to fund rapid tests. What is really urgent is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will stop the clock, because we do not seem to have interpretation. I also saw that the image froze for a moment.

I invite the hon. member to repeat what she said.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say again to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, that we do not have the same concept of what urgent means. Of course it is urgent to support the purchase of rapid tests, since public health authorities have assured us that they are necessary and effective and that we must use them.

However, what is urgent for us in the Bloc Québécois are health transfers and the need for a robust health care system. It is urgent because our health care system is broken. We cannot wait any longer. This is even more urgent than funding the purchase of rapid tests to buy time, which is what the government is doing on a regular basis these days.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion around the role of the provincial government and the role of the federal government, and then, of course, there is the role of municipalities as well.

Specifically, when it comes to rapid tests, I know the Province of Alberta was forced to procure tests at a significant expense because the federal government simply did not have the supply to keep up with the demand at the time. It appears that this bill is spending significant dollars to endeavour to address a problem that was really significant a number of months ago, but certainly one can call into question the relevance of that today. I am confused about how Liberals invoke closure to send the bill to the Senate, which is adjourned this week so they can debate it next week.

Does the member have comments on those points?

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

Madam Speaker, I did not understand if there was a question, but I can add to my colleague's comments by saying that there is no rush for rapid tests. It is not a matter of minutes or days.

A visit to hospitals throughout Quebec and the provinces will show that there are emergencies. They are caused by a shortage of staff, money and available beds. Solving this problem is very urgent, because patients are waiting right now in hospital hallways.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to my colleague on her speech. She really underscored the urgent need to agree to the premiers' demands and properly fund the public health care system in Quebec and the provinces.

Can she explain why it is so important to the Bloc Québécois that we go through the whole legislative process for Bill C‑10 even though the Bloc supports the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her constructive question.

This is about democracy. We need to take the time it takes. We cannot shut down debate on a whim. We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of debate.

We are in favour of these tests, but it is important to go through the parliamentary process.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

I am very proud tonight to rise and speak on behalf of our side to Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. I am thankful for giving the bill the attention and priority that is required.

As members are aware, we have committed through this bill to continue our support of provinces and territories, workplace and not-for-profit organizations in managing the pandemic. In particular, the bill seeks to make rapid tests readily available for the purposes of early detection of COVID-19 positive cases and mitigating the transmission of the virus. I will first speak about regulatory approval of tests.

Since the start of the pandemic, Health Canada has put in place rapid, innovative and agile measures through interim orders to ensure prompt access to medical devices and to respond to the needs of Canadians. Canada has one of the most highly regarded regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the world. Health Canada's consistent approach throughout the pandemic has ensured that testing devices available in Canada have been high performing and reliable.

Health Canada has made it a priority to review applications for COVID-19 devices that meet an urgent public health need in Canada. Manufacturers of these devices must provide sufficient data to support the intended use, including the sensitivity established for the specific test. Tests that do not meet high standards of sensitivity values are not authorized for use, and Canada is one of the few countries with minimal post-market issues, including recalls.

As of the beginning of February, in fact, Health Canada has authorized 107 testing devices, including 10 self-tests and 27 tests that can be used in a point-of-care setting. Working with our public health partners, we have identified testing technologies that are the highest priority for evaluation at this time. Additionally, based on the information available to date, the authorized tests continue to be effective in detecting variants. Canada is also taking a proactive role by contacting manufacturers of self-tests that have been authorized in other jurisdictions and inviting them to submit applications for approval in Canada, and more self-testing applications are currently under evaluation by Health Canada.

To advance regulatory approval of new COVID-19 tests, the regulator has approved over 100 clinical trials for COVID-19 products, many of which benefited from flexible approaches, ultimately helping to identify promising COVID-19 therapies sooner. In addition, it has leveraged its rapport with international regulators to share information on emerging technologies in the context of the rapid evolution of the virus while aligning and collaborating on regulatory and policy approaches. As new tests become available and approved for use in Canada, Health Canada works with provincial and territorial officials to acquire and distribute them.

There is also something to be said about biomanufacturing in this country. In order to secure a better supply of testing devices, it is essential that Canada increase its domestic biomanufacturing capacity. Investments in biomanufacturing capacity will reduce our reliance on imported products, strengthen our domestic industrial capacity and increase the resilience of our nation for years to come.

Budget 2021 made the government's commitment to the biomanufacturing sector clear with a $2.2-billion investment over the next seven years. The regulator is doing its part to support this as it recognizes that the strength of our regulatory system is an important consideration for companies looking to establish a Canadian presence. In fact, as of January 14 of this year, the Government of Canada purchased 30 million rapid tests from Artron Laboratories in Burnaby, British Columbia. These tests have been procured to fulfill immediate, emerging and long-term requirements.

Rapid test delivery is also very important. Rapid tests are proving to be another useful tool in our current response to the omicron variant. Thanks to a $3-billion investment through the safe restart agreement, public health units have extensive access to PCR tests and contact tracing resources, but rapid tests provide a further layer of protection by expanding testing into a broader range of environments, making testing even more accessible to Canadians and curtailing more quickly the spread of COVID-19.

I want to share the latest news on our pledge to deliver rapid tests free of charge to provinces and territories. The Government of Canada has negotiated with eight manufacturers to secure rapid antigen tests for the provinces and territories for the coming months. The Government of Canada has been buying and providing COVID-19 rapid tests free of charge to provinces and territories since October 2020 in line with its authorization of the first COVID-19 rapid test.

While the demand for COVID-19 rapid tests has increased significantly, the government has kept pace, being a reliable partner to provinces and territories, and that will continue. Since the start of the pandemic, we have procured 490 million tests, in fact.

In conclusion, testing is a critical part of Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and how we adjust to everyday life. It allows us to identify outbreaks more quickly, isolate those who are sick, initiate contact tracing and support public health decisions at all levels of government. Equitable access to tests by all Canadians would help to limit the ongoing transmission of the omicron variant. It would help us to rebuild our economy and our lives. It would enable Canadians to know more quickly whether they are infected and to make choices that protect them and our communities.

As potential future waves of this pandemic come and go, we need to be able to weather the storm by using all the resources at our disposal. I trust that all hon. members of this House will agree that equitable access to testing would further protect all Canadians and help us through this pandemic. As a country we need the additional funding of $2.5 billion that Bill C-10 would provide to procure additional tests, and with members' support, we could make sure that every Canadian is in fact supported. We could unite on this point and unite in our common goal of being able to protect our health and to be able to rebuild our nation.

I will conclude by thanking health workers in my home community of London. I do not think that can be said enough. There will be disagreements in this House, and there are disagreements in this House, but one thing I hope we can unite on is recognizing the incredible contributions that they have made. Doctors, nurses and health workers of all kinds since the beginning of this pandemic have stood by members of our communities. London is a health care community and our identity in so many ways is based on that. We have world-class hospitals in our city.

Those constituents who continue to serve in hospitals, who continue to stand by my constituents, I cannot thank them enough. They know that this bill is very important, because while rapid tests are not a panacea as some think, they are a very important tool in combatting the virus. We know that from the health experts who have advised the government on the necessity of precisely this bill. That is why it is so important that we pass this. I hope we can pass it unanimously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have made a number of observations, both in my speech and in a few of the questions and comments. This would have been a great conversation to have had in September of last year. Unfortunately, the Liberal Prime Minister made a very clear and direct choice to ignore what I think was in the best interests of Canadians and plunged the country into an election during the fourth wave of what is a pandemic.

Specifically, we are talking about rapid tests. There is widespread agreement about that being an important tool in the tool belt in the fight against COVID-19. I am very curious if the member has any thoughts on how, after the Minister of Health criticized Conservatives for asking questions about standardizing border testing, arrival testing with other like-minded jurisdictions, he seemed to indicate the other day that the government would in fact be moving in that direction.

Could the member answer for his health minister's hypocrisy on that matter?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, words like “hypocrisy” have to be used very carefully, if at all, in this House. I think it is important to maintain basic decorum. I do not know the member very well, but I would hope he would live up to the honour of the office that he holds.

The health minister is doing exactly as we would hope. He is looking at the science and listening to the health experts. On the specific matter of what is happening at the border, our policy evolves. It evolves because as the pandemic evolves, so too does policy. That is something that has been clear throughout the pandemic. At every step the government has consulted with health experts before putting policy in place.

I wish that some in this House would believe in science, listen to it and listen to the health experts. We would be in much more agreement if that were the case.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for mentioning health care workers. As we all know, they have been at the forefront, the pointy end of the stick, as far as COVID goes in terms of both their physical health and mental health risks.

Another sector that has really been impacted by COVID is tourism. Two years after COVID began, the government still is not getting the supports right for many tourism operators. Independent contractors of any sort, including independent travel advisers, are not able to access any supports. New businesses that started up just as COVID was starting up are still unable to access the supports that all of their competitors have.

I am wondering this. Can the member comment on why the government seems to be blind to all of these needs?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his service. I do not know him that well, but I have always known him to be someone who cares very sincerely about the work and who has done a great deal for his constituents.

On this matter, we will disagree a bit. If we look at what the federal government has done since the onset of the pandemic, it responded very swiftly. It made historic efforts to put in place policy to deal with what is, I think we can all agree, the most difficult situation that has faced this country since the Second World War. Whether it is tourism operators or small or large businesses, we will continue to be there for Canadians as we have been throughout the pandemic, putting in place a number of measures, economic and otherwise, to meet the challenges head-on.

In my own community of London, we have been there whether for tourism operators or others. There is more we can do, of course, and we can look at that, but when it is all said and done, historians will have a lot to say on what has happened, and we will have favourable judgments in the years to come.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19, and how the federal government is working to ensure that Canada continues to have a sufficient supply of COVID‑19 rapid tests.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for London North Centre, for his previous comments. I have heard colleagues throughout the House speak tonight about many other issues. However, I would like to focus my comments this evening on the bill itself, which is known as Bill C-10.

Unfortunately, COVID continues to have a significant impact on the lives of Canadians and remains an unparalleled threat to the health, social and economic well-being of Canadians. As public health restrictions ease in some jurisdictions, testing and the availability of rapid tests will take on an even higher level of importance in our fight against COVID‑19.

Ensuring that all Canadians have what they need to be safe during this critical time is a responsibility that our government takes very seriously. Since the outset of the pandemic, the Government of Canada has worked closely with provinces and territories, taking a team Canada approach to responding to the pandemic. I would like to begin my remarks today by briefly highlighting some of the key initiatives our government has taken thus far to protect Canadians and to help our country recover.

From the very beginning of the pandemic, the Government of Canada was committed to working closely with all levels of government to put the health and safety of Canadians first. The safe restart agreement was a significant element of this team Canada approach. It led to the direct transfer of $3 billion to provinces and territories to enhance testing, contact tracing and data management, with additional monies made available by the Government of Canada to procure COVID‑19 PCR tests. Thanks to the funding from the safe restart agreement, health units across Canada have been able to better identify who was infected, where that person was infected and how much the virus was circulating in communities.

As the pandemic has changed, so has the need for testing. Today, rapid tests are a more important tool in the government's arsenal than ever before. Our government has worked tirelessly, as we have throughout the past two years, in collaboration with provinces and territories to expedite the delivery of rapid tests from coast to coast to coast.

Rapid tests are safe. They are effective. They are easy to administer, and they provide quick results. Their availability empowers Canadians to make informed decisions to protect their health and the health of their loved ones and to avoid spreading the virus further. Since the onset of the COVID‑19 pandemic, all levels of government have collaborated with experts to ensure they have the best evidence, and the best science, to make informed decisions on COVID‑19 testing and screening.

In November, 2020, the Minister of Health formally established the COVID-19 testing and screening expert advisory panel. The panel provided science and policy advice to help inform decisions on innovative approaches to COVID‑19 testing and screening, including advice on the best use of tests, strategies for different settings, and emerging technologies, again following the science.

The panel consisted of highly respected professionals with a broad range of expertise in areas such as health policy, infectious diseases and the implementation of public health measures. Over the course of nine months, the expert panel published five reports, including, “Priority strategies to optimize self-testing in Canada”, which was published in August, 2021. This report provided the foundation by which provinces and territories expanded their testing programs.

Combatting COVID‑19 is about collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada, complemented by the work of an expert advisory panel. This collaboration includes the release of updated pan-Canadian COVID‑19 testing and screening guidance, and a white paper on testing for COVID‑19 in vaccinated populations. These references underscore the importance of continued testing, especially to protect vulnerable populations, and the need for all jurisdictions to sustain COVID‑19 rapid test stockpiles for surge testing to minimize and respond quickly to outbreaks.

Getting Canadians through this pandemic did not only require collaboration among all levels of government, but also required innovative partnerships with the private sector. That is why the government also established innovative partnerships with the establishment of an industry advisory round table on COVID‑19 testing, screening, tracing and data management with members from large, critical industries.

This collaboration led to the launch of the Creative Destruction Lab Rapid Screening Consortium: a non-profit organization located at the University of Toronto, initially comprising 12 companies with national operations. The consortium aimed to develop a system capable of conducting COVID‑19 screening that could produce results within 15 minutes. Let us think about that: in only 15 minutes, we could have an answer to protect our loved ones.

In April, 2021, through the safe restart agreement, Health Canada funded the consortium to expand its program to support the rollout of rapid screening pilots for asymptomatic employees across Canada. As of January 26, 2022, Creative Destruction Lab Rapid Screening Consortium had already onboarded over 2,000 organizations from coast to coast to coast, including school boards, child care centres, long-term care facilities and an array of businesses such as airlines, couriers, banks, mines and retail settings. It was essentially every part of Canada that it could get to.

Additionally, the Canadian Red Cross has been an important partner, providing surge support to provinces and territories for direct patient care. Complementing the work of the consortium, the government partnered with the Canadian Red Cross to support testing and screening in the non-profit sector. In 2021, approximately 300,000 tests were provided to the Canadian Red Cross for this initiative. Through this innovative partnership, 234 non-profit organizations across the country have launched testing programs, receiving support, guidance and test kits directly from the Red Cross. Over 1.6 million tests have been distributed so far through this initiative.

I would like to talk about our northern, remote and isolated communities program. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, the northern, remote and isolated communities initiative was established in early 2020 to ensure equitable access to health care for people living in northern, remote and isolated, NRI, communities across Canada. This initiative prioritizes distribution of point-of-care diagnostic testing supplies, including molecular tests, to communities and to the homes of many first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Led by the Public Health Agency of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory, and in collaboration with Indigenous Services Canada, the program has included training for the installation and use of COVID-19 tests.

To date, the National Microbiology Laboratory has provided more than 230 training sessions for non-health-care professionals to implement point-of-care testing in NRI communities. As of January 16, 2022, over and above the supply provided to provinces and territories, a total of 651 testing instruments and 1,196,039 tests had been deployed to support testing in more than 300 NRI communities.

In conclusion, we have done much as a country to fight this pandemic, and Canadians should feel encouraged by the progress we have made, but it is without question that the months ahead of us will continue to be full of challenges and that we need to do even more to support our country. I ask all of my colleagues to join me and those of us on this side of the floor in supporting the adoption of this bill, so that we can continue to provide critical and timely support to provinces, territories, workplaces and Canadians through this ongoing procurement process and timely distribution of COVID-19 rapid tests that will help keep us all safe.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned a lot of numbers and a lot of supports about all these tests that have been done and all these interesting organizations. It is interesting. Just because something is numerous and noisy does not make it right, and I think that is an important thing we should all consider.

That being said, I need to make something clear. In asymptomatic people who use rapid antigen tests, the sensitivity is about 44% in some studies, which would mean massive numbers of people actually have COVID who are told they do not. The math is simple: 44% of people would say they have COVID, but there would be a whole bunch of people who we would have missed.

Again, if these things are as important as the science these Liberals keep talking about, would it not make sense to simply send this bill to the health committee to be studied before we pass it?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a physician, so I think he would appreciate the science that goes with this and understand that all of this work and all of this testing and research and discussions and consortiums and collaboration between the private and public sector and science has been the reason we have gotten this far in the pandemic in protecting Canadians. The tests help protect our loved ones. These tests are an important tool that have shown time and again how we can control the spread of COVID-19.

To remind my colleague, at the beginning of the pandemic, his side of the aisle, and this was before I was a member of the House, screamed for tests, demanded tests and wanted nothing more than for us to get more tests. At the time, the tests were not all that accurate and that is why we did the work with the consortium, with science and with researchers to improve the quality of testing in this country so that as we move forward now through omicron we have the tools and we have the capability of keeping our population safe as we start to move through this phase of the pandemic.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know we in the House and indeed every Canadian feel like we have been running a marathon and the last thing we want to do right now is stumble at the last 100 metres. It is really important during these heightened tensions we are feeling over the last couple of weeks to remember that there are still a significant number of Canadians who are at risk from COVID-19, who have loved ones who are in the hospitals and some who are in the ICU.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could offer some comments on that. We are not out of the woods yet with COVID-19. We may be able to see the finish line, but it is important that we stay focused to make sure that we come out on the right side of this.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia. It is where much of my family lives and I miss them terribly.

I am tired. My kids are tired. Many members of the House are tired, but the truth is that our ICUs are still struggling with the numbers. We are seeing the cases stabilize a little, but the reality is that we have many Canadians who are immunocompromised, who have other vulnerabilities and who need tools to move forward safely.

A constituent in my riding is a kidney transplant recipient. He cannot go outside. He is waiting for more tests so that he can move on with his life. I hope the members of the House understand that the science and the tools that we need to move forward for Canadians include the procurement and distribution of rapid tests equitably, safely and fairly for every Canadian who needs them.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here this evening in this debate discussing our amendment.

The Conservative Party brought forward this amendment because we feel there just needs to be more time to examine the bill. There is no rush to bring it forward. It has to go through the Senate, which is not even sitting until next week. We need to be able to examine it. We need the minister to come here so that we can ask questions. I have a few minutes to give some of the reasons why we need to ask some questions. We are supportive of bringing rapid tests to Canadians but there are some serious issues that we need to address here this evening.

This is par for the course. It is freezing outside right now in Ottawa, but we may as well be playing golf for the Liberals because it is par for the course. I think back to two years ago when Conservatives brought forward concerns about what was happening in China, Italy and Iran. We brought forward these things. What were we accused of? We were accused of being racists. That is language they love to use, “You're a racist,” and we were just bringing forward some concerns. They always seem to be behind in the game. Speaking of games, it took the NHL and the NBA to cancel their seasons before they realized they had better do something more serious.

The government likes to convince Canadians that their actions related to the pandemic are done only with their best interests in mind. That really causes me and many others to scratch our heads and wonder if it's really in Canadians' best interests or if it is in their close friends' interests, their polling numbers or whether they can get gold, silver and bronze in sharing some of the benefits among those who are close to them. The facts speak for themselves. As a case in point, we had Mr. Frank Baylor, or “Frankie”. Liberals should know him. He was an MP until 2018—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure the hon. member would not want to misname our former colleague, Frank Baylis, who led a charge here for greater democracy in the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for getting up.

We will let the hon. member continue.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, MP Frank Baylis got a contract. He definitely had the inside track for ventilators, for a company that had not built them. He had never made ventilators before. It was a sole-purpose contract for $236 million. It had never been tested or used before. They charged twice its value compared to the competition. It is emergency funding. Therefore, let us give it to our buddies. That is what we see with the Liberals. Just ask Jody Wilson-Raybould what is going on here. It is the same old, same old on that side.

What other sorts of things would cause us maybe to want to look a bit more into their expenditures? How about the WE scandal? What exactly was the WE scandal? Get an organization working with children and do you know what? Maybe a million dollars approximately was given to the Prime Minister's brother, mother and family for speaking fees. What did they get? They got a three-quarters of a billion-dollar contract for something—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Northern Affairs.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is talking about has nothing to do with the topic at hand of securing rapid tests for Canadians. I know in my province of Manitoba rapid tests are severely needed. Manitobans need them, so could the hon. member get back to the topic at hand?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have been surprised before when I believe members are off on a tangent and suddenly they bring their argument. I am sure the hon. member will make sense and come into his argument. I will just remind him, though, to try to be as relevant as possible when he is debating the topic at hand.

I will let the hon. member continue.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is absolutely relevant. We are talking about $2.5 billion of money. What is $2.5 billion? What is $1.2 trillion of deficit that we have doubled under the Liberals? What does that mean? It is just money. It is just taxpayer money. It just puts it upon our children and their children and their children. Who cares? That is the attitude we are getting from this group.

Why am I passionate about this? It is because the Liberals are trying to ram through this bill, which we have supported. We have talked about getting rapid testing for the past year and a half. For the past year and a half, we have been bringing this forward. Now they are patting themselves on the back for getting all of these rapid tests. They are not very rapid on getting the rapid tests. It is pretty slow if they ask me.

More than just slow, it is not just the rapid tests. We need to examine this. How about vaccinations? They tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have more vaccines per capita than others in the world. We have almost as many as there are stars in the sky.

We have vaccines, 200 million vaccines, and this does relate to the motion. It does not matter that we are paying twice as much as the Europeans or 50% more than the Americans. That is just taxpayer money. We are talking about $2.5 billion. What are we getting for that? Do Canadians not deserve to see what is in there? The Liberals say that it is an emergency and we have to pass this forward.

Maybe there is another little emergency happening right now. The fact of the matter is that we had a vote today on getting mandates lifted, and the Liberals want to shift the dial. Premier Ford was announcing that the province was lifting restrictions and their response was to ask, “What should we do?” Let us have an emergency meeting right now, tonight, Sunday night, and bring in the emergency measures act, and for good measure let us also do this bill.

Things have been serious for a while, but this is how this party works, supported by our friends in the NDP. This is serious and Canadians have a right to know.

When the pandemic began, we had daily calls with staff and it was a running joke after a while. We would give some suggestions to the public affairs people who answer the questions and give it to the end of the month. On the other side the ministers would say that it was a good idea and they would just incorporate it, whether it was a 10% wage subsidy at the beginning, increased to 75%, or a whole host of measures. The impression that we on this side get is absolute wastefulness on that side. They say it is the taxpayers but whatever.

We have doubled the amount of debt in Canadian history just in the past while here. There comes a time for accountability. There comes a time for constraint. There comes a time for thoughtfulness, and we are not seeing it over there.

I remember watching what was happening here over the past couple of years and wondering who we are being run by. Who is economically running this? Is this a group of high school students? I am sorry to high school students. I am a high school teacher by profession. However, this is ridiculous. Maybe they should not be sending these cheques to foreign addresses. Going back to high school students, maybe they should not be giving tens of thousands of dollars to students who have made maybe $5,000. Maybe a bit of thoughtfulness would have been helpful for Canadians, because the Liberals are putting us into bondage.

This is an important bill.

I would also say this on vaccinations. I will tell them where they can put the rapid tests to good use. They can maybe open up to some people they have excluded from Canada. They have made them lepers. Who are these lepers? They are the people who are unvaccinated, who happen to be, according to the Liberals' report, about 20% or maybe more of the population. Maybe people could use them so they could travel. That was the Conservative position. How about letting people travel?

In British Columbia and Canada right now, 20% of households have had COVID in the past month and a half. We are talking about millions of people. It is all over. It is endemic.

They are saying to forget about testing and treat it like you have a flu or a cold. They are saying to stay at home. I know hundreds of people who have had COVID. I had COVID three weeks ago, and my wife did also, so it is real. I know people who have died from it. I am not saying we do not need rapid tests. I am just saying that we need to show a little more thoughtfulness and respect for Canadian taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that was entertaining. When we follow the debate of the Conservatives today, we have to wonder where they are on the issue of tests.

We have some members who stand up to ridicule it. It is almost as if they do not believe rapid tests play a valuable role at all in society. They are asking why we are spending this money. Then there are other members who stand up to say they are going to vote in favour of the legislation.

I guess the question to ask the member is whether he will be be voting in favour of the legislation. Is he against the legislation? Where is the Conservative Party today, Mr. Trump? Oh, I meant that for the member.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, we are with Canadians. We are concerned about their health. We want to see them wherever they are at. We want them to have their own free choices. It is “my body, my choice” as far as vaccinations go. It is not to treat them like they are idiots or like they are white supremacists. They are not. They are Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While we might have fun volleying back and forth with the member for Winnipeg North, his addressing my colleague as Mr. Trump was offensive.

He knows full well that was not a mistake. He did it on purpose. I ask that he stand and apologize to the member and to the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment and I apologize.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 8 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Motion No. 8 under government business now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #25

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment defeated.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Government Business No. 8 standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, be amended:

a) in paragraph (c), by deleting all the words after the words “recorded division is requested” and substituting the following, “it shall be deferred to the next sitting day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions, and the House shall then adjourn to the next sitting day”; and

b) by deleting paragraph (g).

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The next question is on the main motion, as amended.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion, as amended, be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #26

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of the bill at second reading.