Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2020

Child Care

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised universal, affordable, public child care 27 years ago, five years ago, one year ago and two weeks ago, but they never delivered. If only the Liberals had been government over those years; oh wait, they were.

Like other child care centres, the Garderie Tunney's Daycare in Ottawa has had to close suddenly. Parents still had to pay high fees for child care they were not even getting, in fact, $1,800 for just a few days of care in October.

Why is child care only a priority for Liberals when they are giving speeches?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, we are very much committed to child care. We have created over 40,000 affordable child care spaces since 2015. We are still committed to ensuring that there are an additional 250,000 before and after school child care spaces. We are on track to continue to invest $7.5 billion in child care over the next number of years. We have reached agreements with provinces and territories.

In addition to that, and to answer directly my colleague's question, we have invested over $2 billion in child care this year alone, making sure that provinces and territories and the child care sector are resilient and emerge stronger after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Health

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we fail to understand the importance of mental health, we pay a price as society in loss of employment, family breakdown, stress-related diseases, addiction, homelessness and crime. Mental health care such as counselling should not be a luxury for those can afford it or a late intervention for those who are already in crisis.

Will the government implement a national mental health strategy and fully include mental health care under the Canada Health Act?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I fully concur with the member opposite's assertion that we need to be focused on mental health now more than ever. Certainly it is not a new problem. We know that many people struggle with mental health even in the best of times, and during this very difficult time, with loneliness and big changes to our daily practices, it is even harder.

I will work with the member opposite to make sure that Canadians get support to access services, and I remind him of the Wellness Together Canada portal, where any Canadian can get access to mental health supports absolutely free.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am going to ask the usual Thursday question about an update on parliamentary business.

As we all know, the past few days have been quite busy, but in a good way, in terms of the work we are doing for Canadians.

Today we are talking about COVID-19 and health. The member who moved the motion reached out to the government to find out when the documents will be tabled. We would like information about that.

As everyone knows, the government insists on talking about COVID-19 all the time. Can the government therefore tell us what business we will be looking at in the days to come? No doubt it will have to do with COVID-19.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague came at his gracious question in a roundabout way.

This afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the Conservative Party's motion, of course.

We still have a number of important bills on the legislative agenda, including the MAID bill, the conversion therapy bill and the judicial training bill.

Tomorrow, we will begin debate on Bill C-5, regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation.

Starting on Monday, we will take up the second reading debate of Bill C-6, the bill regarding conversion therapy.

Lastly, I note that Thursday, October 29, will be an allotted day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Health

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the motion moved by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, for whom I have great respect.

Committee work is essential to the proper functioning of our parliamentary system and our democracy. As the last parliamentary session drew to a close, I was able to participate in the Standing Committee on Finance's examination of the last budget of the 42nd Parliament. I was also a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We worked very hard to adopt a number of extremely important reports.

I firmly believe in the role of parliamentary committees and I also believe that the motion before us deals with a subject that warrants the attention of the Standing Committee on Health. However, I must admit that I have some concerns and reservations about the details of this motion, which I could almost describe as an omnibus motion, since it contains 28 clauses.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, I make a point of looking at every proposal, every motion, including the motion that is before us today, from the perspective of our business owners, of our SMEs.

As the members here know, the motion lists 16 areas of study within 28 different clauses. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, I will focus on the areas of the motion that I believe will impact our Canadian businesses, as well as areas of international procurement.

The motion proposes to study the availability of paid sick leave to those in quarantine and voluntary isolation. I believe this is an absolutely critical aspect of our government's response to COVID-19. We all know how important it is to continue to keep our businesses open and running, while protecting the health and safety of one another. We know that the balance between the two is certainly a hard one to manage.

The thinking behind the government’s proposal with respect to paid sick leave is rooted in the belief that nobody should have to choose between staying home because they have symptoms of COVID-19 and being able to pay for groceries or rent. That is why we introduced Bill C-4, which included the Canada recovery sickness benefit that provides $500 per week, for up to two weeks, to Canadians who are either experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, are in self-isolation because they have COVID-19 or have underlying conditions that would make them more susceptible to the virus.

As we all know, the bill received the unanimous support of the House and I believe it also passed royal assent within three days. This is an extremely good example of the speed and efficiency that is possible when we all work together.

The sick leave benefits that the motion proposes to study in committee fulfill the Government of Canada’s commitment under the safe restart agreement with provinces and territories. Already now, Canadians have been able to apply for the benefit since October 5, and as of this past Monday, October 12, Canadians who are not eligible for employment insurance have been able to apply for the Canada recovery benefit.

We know that right now our business owners cannot afford to pay for new benefits. We also know that Canadians were asking for this support. It was up to our government to respond. We will continue to respond to the needs of Canadians throughout this pandemic.

I would now like to approach the motion from the perspective of employers. We know that our workers and our businesses are facing a lot of uncertainty right now. There is not as much money coming in and our business owners cannot afford to provide additional benefits even if they wanted to.

The Canada recovery sickness benefit is there for employed individuals who are unable to work because they are sick. The $500-a-week benefit for two weeks not only supports our workers, but it is also essential for our businesses.

We have all seen schools, offices and factories forced to close due to outbreaks of the virus. This benefit helps employers protect their teams without having to face the impossible decision of determining whether one of their employees is too sick to come to work.

The federal government is there for them and will cover two weeks of paid leave. This is a first for Canada. The program provides a win-win solution for our SMEs and our workers while also limiting community transmission of the virus.

I have to be honest. It is not clear, on the basis of the motion before the House, what aspect of paid sick leave is being proposed for study. The motion refers to the availability of sick leave, but as the House knows, this benefit has already been available to hard-working Canadians for two weeks now. It is therefore perhaps a bit late to study whether or not this measure should go forward, and as I have explained, I believe this program to be absolutely critical. I would assume, on the basis of the fact that the bill in which this measure was included was passed unanimously by the House, that every member of the House agreed with that.

If the motion is proposing to study how well the benefit is working, with only two weeks of usage I would suggest that it is perhaps premature to study its effect at this time. It might be more useful to study this issue independently in a stand-alone study once a longer period of usage exists and more data can be evaluated by committee members.

Let me now turn to another aspect of the motion that touches on international procurement, including the proposal in the motion to study the procurement of vaccines. While I understand the spirit of what is being proposed here, when I read the fine print of the motion, included therein is a requirement to disclose all documents concerning the purchase of these life-saving drugs. The motion would therefore effectively make us hand over details of our negotiating positions and considerations for deals that are not even yet complete.

I cannot emphasize enough how this would jeopardize our ability to compete and procure what Canadians need in order to survive this pandemic. If other countries find out the good prices that Canada was successful in negotiating with suppliers, they could try to buy the order out from under us. Let me detail this a little further.

We could be forced to reveal the pricing and sales terms we obtained in our international vaccine procurement process. This would expose us to two very serious potential problems.

If another country finds out our terms, it could decide to outbid us and hijack our order.

In addition, this information could undermine the Canadian government's credibility with our suppliers. The last thing we need right now is for our suppliers to decide that Canada is not a reliable partner and sign an agreement with another country that does not require them to disclose information about their terms and conditions. This is a real risk. There are quite a few other potential customers looking to procure these same vaccines.

The last thing I believe we want to do in the House is to endanger hard-fought procurement deals that will ensure that Canada has the best possible set of vaccine supply contracts. We need companies to feel confident that the Canadian government will remain a reliable partner and not look to publish reams of sensitive information regarding the company's pricing, conditions or scheduling.

We know there are real risks in this ultracompetitive bidding environment. It is a global pandemic impacting countries all over the world. The competition, therefore, on the international stage is incredibly fierce. We must continue to be competitive in our bids. We must continue to be a country that vaccine suppliers wish to partner with, and our priority must continue to be to ensure that Canada has access to vaccines against COVID-19.

These are just a few of of the problematic issues I see in the very large motion before us. I therefore cannot support the motion as it is currently written, and Canadians cannot afford to have us jeopardize our ability to procure a vaccine to COVID-19.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians have been asking a lot of questions about the government's handling of the pandemic, about rapid testing, about the management of PPE and many different aspects.

Does my colleague believe that the government's response to COVID-19 warrants a review? If that is the case, why are the Liberals presumably allowing politics to get in the way of supporting the motion?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was in the House earlier today when the Minister of Health indicated that she would be open to negotiating with the Conservative members on how we could ensure the motion fulfills the request for responses to certain questions, whether they be on PPE or rapid testing. However, as I mentioned in my lengthy speech just now, there are serious problems with this motion that make it impossible for our government to move forward as proposed.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to recap, the hon. member did a phenomenal job of presenting the reasons why she could not support the motion from her perspective. Now I will share through mine some of the problems that are still outstanding with her rationale.

At the outset of COVID, there was a drastic mishandling of the national emergency stockpile. We asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, who could have been responsible, if it was her responsibility. She said, no, it was the Minister of Health. Then we asked the Minister of Health who, of course, would not take responsibility for the fact that the government threw out millions of critical PPE on the eve of a pandemic and still has not adequately accounted for that decision.

Does the member opposite not believe that the government has a role and a responsibility to ensure that critical personal protective equipment is provided to Canadians in a way that will help offset what could perhaps be a third wave coming in the future?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, procuring the necessary PPE for Canadians is an absolute priority for the government. We did transfer $19 billion to the provinces, in part to ensure they could procure and have access to the necessary PPE.

With respect to my hon. colleague's question as to why a very specific issue cannot be studied, I would suggest that what we have before us is a 28-clause motion with 16 areas of study. Perhaps he could propose an area of study specific to what he is looking for, so that we can answer that specific question.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a very good point that I had not thought of myself, about how the figures and information required in some cases could undermine the government's bargaining position with vaccine manufacturers.

This made me think that when members are drafting these motions, and this one looks to have 28 parts, they should really think about what is being asked, to make sure that the provisions do not undermine Canada's interests.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. Obviously that is what I am concerned about right now.

We know that there are many clients on the international market who are trying to get vaccines. If Canada undermines its credibility, if Canada starts disclosing its companies' confidential or sensitive information, these suppliers will not want to do business with Canada. We must be sure that we can get COVID-19 vaccines for Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I noticed that she, like everyone, is very concerned about the health of Canadians in the coming months.

However, what we are hearing is that the government could, once again, make this motion a confidence vote and potentially trigger an election in Canada. We have learned that there are more cases of the virus in Quebec today, more deaths.

Does my colleague not agree that it is a bit irresponsible to trigger an election in Canada during a pandemic?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone wants an election. We all want to work in the House to move forward with measures that will help Canadians. We have several bills pending and we want to get them passed in the House.

I completely agree with my colleague. Now is not the time to call an election.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, and I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague for West Nova.

We are here today, because we have a great motion from our colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. It is one that looks at the COVID pandemic. Yesterday, we had a motion that the government decided was a confidence motion. The government did not like what we had put forward. Nowhere and at no other time have we ever seen a group, an organization or a government work so hard at not answering a question and not providing the answers that Canadians deserve than we have seen over the last little while.

A year ago yesterday, Canadians put this Liberal government on notice. From previously enjoying a majority, they were given a minority. I have to say that since the election of a minority government took place a year ago, we have seen a Prime Minister who does not seem really interested in governing this country. He does not have a majority. We have not even seen a federal budget for almost two years, and what we have seen time and time again are ethical scandals and ethical blunders from this Prime Minister and his cabinet.

Canadians also re-elected, a year ago yesterday, a strong Conservative opposition with a clear mandate to hold this Liberal government to account. We were elected to ask the tough questions of this government, which we do, but very seldom do we get answers. As a matter of fact, what we have seen time and again is every excuse as to why they cannot answer a question.

Just prior to this debate going on, we saw the parliamentary secretary stand on a point of order to say how hard it was going to be and that it would paralyze the government. It would seize-up the government to try and answer these questions. Yesterday they did not like the motion because they felt it was questioning the government and it was not COVID related. Now, we have a conscientious, measured motion that is directly related to the COVID pandemic, and they do not like it. They cannot do it.

I have to say that the last 10 months have been among the most challenging of my elected career. I think if we surveyed the 338 members of Parliament, they would say the same thing. We are experiencing the heartbreaking stories of our constituents, Canadians who not only have health concerns, but are also facing incredible, mounting financial losses.

In the early days I would say that, yes, there was a team Canada approach. Opposition would challenge some of the programs that came out and offer solutions. Sometimes the information was taken and these programs were changed. However, as we sit today, there are still tens of thousands of businesses that have shuttered their doors and Canadians who are out of work. Now we are gripped with a second wave of this global pandemic, and all we are asking is what the plan is and where the money is going.

In early spring, we saw almost $900 million awarded to an organization that had close ties to the Prime Minister and the former finance minister. Since the opposition has been asking questions about how it happened, all we have seen is filibuster after filibuster and a refusal to answer the questions. The Liberals like to say that they released thousands of documents. Perhaps they might have released thousands of documents, but the amount of black ink that was used to scribble out the lines of information in those documents is astronomical.

Just within the last few days, we found out that early in the pandemic, a former Liberal MP was given a contract worth over $237 million, only 11 days after actually registering the company.

Canadians have questions. The 338 members of Parliament elected to this House were elected to be the voices of Canadians. It is not a right for us to be in this House. It is a privilege. For those members who are new and who have never heard me speak, I will remind my colleagues that the House does not belong to them or me. It belongs to the electors who elected the 338 members of Parliament. They charged us to ask the hard questions of the government. They charged the opposition to hold the government's feet to the fire and to work collaboratively with the government. They also charged that minority government to work collaboratively with the opposition.

I want to talk about leadership in my province of British Columbia. Throughout this pandemic, my province of British Columbia has had incredible leadership. We have been well served by Dr. Bonnie Henry. She is a former navy physician now serving as our provincial public health officer. Maybe it is because of her military background, but she had a plan and she implemented it early. She did not take risks for British Columbians.

On January 27, I stood in this House and mentioned to colleagues that my riding is the Asia-Pacific gateway to North America. Every day, tens of thousands of passengers enter our borders. I asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health what the plans were to increase screening and to shut our borders down, as we were seeing other countries do. I was scolded. I was chastised for fearmongering and being racist.

Under Dr. Bonnie Henry's direction, British Columbia took swift and decisive action early and without hesitation. She communicated frequently, clearly and effectively. She implemented an early and aggressive testing and tracing strategy, and enforced social distancing regulations more rapidly than any other province.

Health care workers employed at multiple long-term care facilities were ordered to limit work to a single site, largely preventing the disastrous outcomes at long-term care homes seen in Ontario and Quebec.

Dr. Henry acted early when it mattered. Her strong and decisive leadership garnered international praise, and ultimately my province was able to flatten the infection curve ahead of other parts of Canada. Now we have seen an increase over recent months. However, she remains strong and resolute.

Dr. Bonnie Henry had a plan. What we are seeing with the government is that it is just now implementing pilots that other countries and other provinces have been doing for months. They did it at the start of this global pandemic.

We have questions. Sadly, we have seen the government and its ministers say that committees are masters of their own destinies and that they act independently. However, all the Liberals got together and decided they were going to filibuster every committee putting forth motions challenging the government on COVID-19 spending and the WE scandal.

I am a father of four. The Prime Minister's actions remind me of when one of my children did not like what the other children were doing, they would complain that the others were not playing fair. They would tell us we should look at what the others were doing. They would run away, or they would just take their toys to go to another area. I think Canadians deserve better.

Conservatives are here to ask the tough questions, and we will continue to do so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, here is but one clause in this two-page motion, if I may read it:

...all memoranda, emails, documents, notes or other records from the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, concerning options, plans and preparations for the GPHIN since January 1, 2018....

Madam Speaker, we are in a second wave of a pandemic. We have civil servants working every day with provincial governments, territorial governments, indigenous leaders, the private sector and corporations. They are working together on this every day.

The Conservatives want to see this work done by civil servants, and they are saying they want those documents in 14 days. They are asking to get all this information in 14 days. To heck with the pandemic. This is the Conservative priority, so they can have all these documents to peruse and see if they can find something they can say is unethical.

I wonder if the member would recognize that maybe it is time for the Conservatives be a bit more realistic with what they are asking.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, where was this same concern for Canadians when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament for six weeks, returning a week before these critical programs were coming due? Where was this same concern when Canadians struggled, and when people in our aviation sector were taking their own initiative, thrust at the front line to do their own testing? Where was this same concern when the farmers, ranchers and agriculture organizations were saying they needed help? Where was that same concern?

All we see are more excuses from the government. We see excuse after excuse. We see it delay, deflect, and put the blame somewhere else. Canadians deserve better, and we will continue to challenge the Liberals.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Let us not forget that we are currently going through a protracted health crisis that is affecting us all. Many have lost a friend, family member or colleague. We ourselves could also get sick and die from this. There is always a risk; anyone can die from it.

Compared to many other countries, Canada is lagging behind when it comes to testing technologies. For instance, the Abbott ID NOW test has been available in the United States since the spring, but it was not approved here until late September.

Why does my colleague think we are seeing such unacceptable delays?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question from my colleague. Another question to ask is this: When Canada was being thrust into the first wave and we had a shortage of personal protective equipment, why did our Prime Minister and the government ship tonnes of personal protective gear? Why, when we are thrust into an opioid crisis, has the government not done anything about that?

Canadians, and the health and safety of Canadians, should always remain the first priority. Instead, what we have seen from this Prime Minister is that he panders to his international friends trying to secure that UN security seat. Instead, he is putting the lives of Canadians at risk. It is time to get serious.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the biggest issue facing our country, next to climate change, is the response to COVID-19.

I am glad to hear my hon. colleague talk about transparency and accountability being critical for combatting misinformation and maintaining the public's trust in the government's response to COVID-19.

With six red zones right now in Ontario and Quebec, and with small businesses waiting for help, does my colleague agree with me that it would be completely irresponsible for the Liberals to plunge us into an election only a year after an election took place, in the midst of this crisis, and with people needing help right now?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just came from the PROC committee where I serve as vice-chair. We had the Chief Electoral Officer state his concerns about holding an election during the pandemic. I asked him a number of questions. My first question was whether the Prime Minister consulted with him over his threat of an election yesterday. The Chief Electoral Officer said he did not. My second question was whether the Prime Minister had any modelling of how many deaths and cases a threshold would be, for him to recklessly throw us into an election during the pandemic. The Chief Electoral Officer had no comment.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to spend time talking about this motion. I have been listening attentively to my colleagues, especially the Liberal colleagues from the health committee, which I am proud to sit on. It makes me concerned for our future and dealing with things collaboratively for the betterment of our communities and, of course, for the health of Canadians.

Since March, Canada, like many countries around the world, has been severely affected by the pandemic, but many countries are doing better.

A lot of countries are doing much better than Canada is. It seems quite often that we compare our response with what I would qualify as the bottom of the barrel, which is our friends to the south, in the U.S., and how they are dealing with it. We are doing a heck of a lot better than them; however, if we compare ourselves with other countries, we are not doing as well as we have been told we have.

The motion from my hon. colleague from Calgary Nose Hill is fully in order and reasonable in making sure we have the documents required to make decisions on behalf of Canadians. We need to know where we have been and know what we have done in order to not make those mistakes in the future. Contrary to what the Liberals are trying to say, they are the ones who are trying to hide the gaps in their response to COVID-19.

I have not been in Parliament for very long, and I have not been on the health committee for very long, but I always thought that when a motion was presented in a committee, members discussed it and then amended it as necessary. Members do not stand there and filibuster for two full meetings, which is basically what has happened for both meetings of the health committee to date. As a matter of fact, I do not think I have had an opportunity to say more than three words in that committee.

I know, beyond this motion, there are a number of other motions that are great pieces of study as well. One that will be coming from our friends in the Bloc is a study of the PMPRB. Let us get moving on this first motion to provide information to the members of that committee and to the people in the House of Commons, so that we know where we have been to help us go where we want to go.

I was not going to talk about the team Canada approach until later on in my speech, but I want to underline that everybody has been raising the team Canada flag and saying that we all need to be working together. Most times, the team Canada approach is only for Liberal members. We, in the opposition, are not provided with the information we require to make decisions or to know whether something is being done correctly or not.

I want to thank all of our health care workers. I know and understand they are very busy, especially those who are working with patients who have COVID-19, or those who are working at many of our testing sites and labs. They are working to plan, especially the chief medical officers of health and the premiers who are making decisions on behalf of the provinces.

I will even thank the public servants in theminister's department, but I am sure within a few weeks they would like to prove us wrong. Why not prove the opposition wrong on some of the allegations they have been bringing forward? Would it not be better to provide the information of this motion so that they can prove us wrong once and for all, or so we can find the gaps and close them up?

Let us look at some real examples of gaps in our response to COVID-19. I will use the example of Nova Scotia. We do not necessarily have much COVID-19. I forget what the number is today, but even in the Atlantic bubble, we have fewer than 100 or so cases of COVID-19.

That is because the medical officers of health decided a long time ago that they would close our borders to visitors, and make sure that people coming in isolated for 14 days.

Even within the bubble, we have had challenges on testing, especially when students went back to school. A few weeks ago, my niece was exhibiting symptoms and my sister-in-law and brother had to call the 811 number to try to book a test. It took eight days to get the test and a response so that my niece could go back to school. Quite honestly, she was more worried about transmitting the disease than she was about getting it herself.

Luckily, in Nova Scotia there is a semi-rapid test. It is a gargle test. If COVID shows up, people can have the other test. There were eight days of lockdown, eight days of no school and eight days of no work for that family. This is the kind of thing that has been going on and that is why we need rapid tests, even in Atlantic Canada, which has the lowest numbers of COVID-19.

I am glad the folks in Atlantic Canada have made their own decisions as to how to go forward, contrary, in a lot of cases, to what the Government of Canada has been saying. I know they all sit at a table and work on things, but I am glad there is this independence of the different provinces making their own decisions.

The other thing I want to ask, in order to understand what the government has done, is why companies that we know can provide rapid testing have not been accepted at this point. In Nova Scotia, Sona Nanotech has a gold standard when it comes to rapid testing and it has not been approved yet.

Why has it not been approved? I am sure we will find that out with the information provided to us by the government through this motion.

Canadians need to know why the Liberals failed so miserably at preparing us for the second wave of COVID-19. We need those answers so we can develop a better plan for moving forward. The Liberals have plenty of public servants who are paid to do this work. There is no reason they cannot do it. That is why we at the Standing Committee on Health need to get back to work. The physical and mental health of Canadians depends on it, our economic health depends on it, and our future as a prosperous G7 country depends on it.

I invite my parliamentary colleagues of all political stripes to support this motion to finally give meaning to the term “team Canada” and restore Canadians' confidence in the independence of committees and the importance of their work. The health of Canadians is not a bargaining chip, and it does not belong to any political party.

We all need to demonstrate responsibility.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to team Canada in a number of instances in his comments, and I really do respect that. As the member correctly identified, as did the speaker prior to him, B.C. is doing things a certain way and other provinces are doing them in other ways. He made reference to the gargle test, for example.

It is important. What we have seen in the last eight months has been a very positive approach from different levels of government, non-profits and other interested parties, which has really made the difference. It has allowed us to get through and it will allow us to get through the second wave.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it is that governments and people continue to work together, because the pandemic is still there in a very real way. We should continue to work together. It does not mean we cannot have questions, but we do need to be focused.