Debates of Dec. 6th, 2021

Criminal Code

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak while your are in the chair. I congratulate you on your appearance before the House.

In short, I support the bill going through second reading and moving on to committee. Like my colleague for Langley—Aldergrove, after a few brief comments I will focus on the proposed Criminal Code amendments.

Canada's Conservatives, and our recent platform on this point really bore it out, will continue to be the voice for working Canadians, especially those who have been left behind by the current government.

I will now move on to what is very important not only in my riding but in a number of ridings, which is the implication of Bill C-3 when it comes to health care workers.

It is a pleasure to appear here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Our riding is geographically diverse. Places like 100 Mile House, which has a small hospital, or places like Barrière and Clearwater are often underserviced and it is important that we recognize and protect not only the contribution those health care workers in that area make, but also recognize the tremendous importance they have.

In my own experience, during the election, I drove through a protest at Royal Inland Hospital. Two of the fellow candidates, the candidate for the Liberal Party and the candidate for the Green Party, had partners who were critical health care workers, so this was very close to my heart and mind during the election. It really emphasized the strain that the pandemic had placed on health care workers.

I want to emphasize for my colleagues in the House that time and again I commend what our front-line health care workers have done. We have seen them step up. I know at the beginning people would go outside and would frequently ring the bells every night as a commemoration to the health care workers. Slowly, those things started to disappear. Then, I believe it was nightly, there would be a procession of all first responders, such as the police, the sheriffs and the ambulances. Then that went to weekly. It can be very easy to forget the sacrifices that have been made by our front-line health care workers. I want to appreciate them as the member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as well as simply a citizen of Canada. I appreciate all the work they have done.

A number of people in my riding have really risen to the occasion during this time, for instance, the workers in specific facilities with outbreaks, seniors homes and the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. Nurses in 100 Mile House stayed in hotel rooms in order to protect their families. Volunteers ran immunization clinics smoothly. People like Dr. Shane Barclay and Laura Bantock lobbied for and obtained a testing centre in Sun Peaks, which is vital to our community, our tourism, our fabric and our recreation in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is critical that we see tourism thrive in a place like Sun Peaks and eradicating the pandemic from Sun Peaks is obviously of critical importance. With that, it is a pleasure that people do not have to travel to Kamloops to have a safer place to work, worship and play.

The Criminal Code offers protections to a number of groups. There are already provisions with respect to threatening and intimidating, but Bill C-3 goes one step further. Even in these discussions, the Hansard that is created is important to reflect what the House believes. As somebody who practised law for a number of years and spoke about sentencing on these types of issues, it is important that what we say here reflects the consensus and the issues before the House.

The Criminal Code already reflects that it is an aggravating feature to threaten, assault or intimidate certain groups. I think about section 270 of the Criminal Code with respect to assaulting a peace officer. It is an offence to assault anybody, but Parliament has said that when one assaults a peace officer, one has gone one step further and the offence is recognized with a greater level of seriousness for obvious reasons.

It is the same thing for children. There are offences that relate specifically to children to reflect the seriousness of committing an offence against a child. Similarly, when it comes to intimidation and obstruction of justice, there are offences that protect justice system participants, reporters and people who carry out their justice system practice.

With what I have already said, health care workers are integral to the functioning of our society. Various colleagues on both sides of the House have noted already the strains they are under, so I will not repeat them. However, I wish to note that it is very important that we do protect these groups.

I am in favour of studying these issues further at committee. I am therefore speaking in support of the bill going to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, during the course of the debate today, we have heard at least a couple Conservative colleagues try to draw a parallel between the protests that are happening outside hospitals with those that occurring along pipelines.

I wonder if the member thinks that when this does get to committee, we should draw that comparison and try to further the legislation to include looking at protests along pipelines.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada relies on infrastructure. At this point, what is before the House is the protection of health care workers. I certainly would be in favour of looking at legislation that protects any critical infrastructure, not just pipelines. Infrastructure is just as critical to Canadians as health care is, so I am in favour of any legislation that extends protection to our system functioning smoothly.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

First, it is my first opportunity to congratulate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo on his election. I noticed that his speech was silent on the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, yet he spoke passionately about the importance of health professionals.

According to Statistics Canada, my riding of Nunavut has the lowest ratio compared to the rest of Canada for the national average of doctors to residents, which is 85 doctors per 100,000 people. Because of the many issues that we have facing health care in Nunavut, I am particularly interested in what the member's position is on allowing medical certification to be relaxed. Bill C-3 talks about the requirement for medical certification and I would like to hear his position on relaxing the provisions set out in Bill C-3.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I live in a riding where there is a significant doctor shortage, but it is nowhere near the shortage that my colleague from Nunavut mentioned.

With that, I support anything that is going to get more people into health care facilities. I am open to discussing this at committee so we can dive into it more. Hopefully, we can all come to a consensus so there can be more doctors and nurses. It would be helpful because, simply put, we are just not turning out enough doctors and medical practitioners.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to just shake my head when I hear my colleague talk about finding solutions to help regions experiencing a shortage of health care workers.

There is a very simple solution. Health falls under provincial and Quebec jurisdiction. We therefore reiterate the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers, without conditions. That is the best way for Quebec and the provinces to take charge of recruitment and ensure that all regions in each Canadian province and in Quebec will be well represented and have the staff they need.

Does my colleague agree that the government should commit to an immediate and unconditional increase in health transfers, as called for by Quebec and the provinces?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, a part of our Conservative platform was actually an increase in health transfers. As my colleague for Langley—Aldergrove pointed out, this is a jurisdictional issue, health care is provided by the provinces, and the federal government does provide funding for that. As set out in our platform in the most recent election, we were all for increasing health transfers to the provinces given our aging population and the need for ongoing care.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour and privilege to once again rise and enter into debate in this place.

If members will indulge me, I will share a few thanks and a few thoughts prior to getting into the substance of what we are here to debate today, which is the Liberal's new bill, Bill C-3. It truly is an honour to serve, and along with that there are some thanks that I need to pass along.

First, I need to thank my wife Danielle, who has stood through what has been a very interesting first term in Parliament. Of course, when we had that discussion about whether or not I would let my name stand again, she was very supportive, and we hope that we can see a return to at least some level of normalcy as we move forward. I send my love to my wife, Danielle, and to my boys Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I love them, and I am so thankful for the support that they give. Even though sometimes it may be a little hard for the boys to understand, as they are five, three and soon to be six months, I am so thankful for that love and support.

I thank my staff, my campaign team, my EDA and all those who help make an election happen.

I would also like to take a moment to thank, in what was undoubtedly a difficult election in many ways, those other candidates who ran and showed up. There was one party that notably did not even show up in this last election, and that was a travesty for democracy in central Alberta. Anyone who puts their name on the ballot deserves thanks and respect, and I have that for those who ran in Battle River—Crowfoot.

I thank all those poll workers and local individuals who helped to make sure that an election could happen, even though it was an election, I would suggest, that nobody really wanted except for the Prime Minister who sits across the way. However, they also deserve our thanks.

Of course, I am deeply grateful for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for once again sending me to be their voice in our nation's capital to ensure that the interests of rural, east central Alberta are heard, and that is certainly what I plan to do.

I will share a few thoughts and observances from the election. I found it very interesting that just two or three months prior, the Prime Minister's itinerary came out saying that there was a visit to the newly appointed Governor General's residence, and I could not help but think that he would be going back on his word. Now, it would not surprise many within this place and many Canadians that we cannot take the Prime Minister's word all that seriously. The signs were already there for a fourth wave, yet he put his personal political interests before the lives of Canadians. It is a shame. I have some unparliamentary language that comes to mind, but I will spare members that.

Over the course of the summer and during the election, I had a chance to speak with many constituents who brought up a myriad of concerns. One constituent, a man by the name of John Dillon, brought forward something that I told him I would share in this place. I had spoken with him during the previous election, and I was reminded when I went to his door again. This 40-year Air Force veteran asked a question about why parliamentarians get preferred treatment over the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Why does it take him decades to qualify for his pension while it takes a politician six years? We continued to talk over the course of a fairly extended period of time about some of the frustrations that he has, and about the hypocrisy and the frustration with the political status quo in this country.

I hope to get to as much in as possible in 10 minutes, which is not a lot of time. I also spoke to constituents who were frustrated beyond belief on all sides of the political spectrum, and about how divisive and polarized politics are in this country. A number of times, I would encourage constituents I was speaking with to make sure that they looked a little beyond Facebook in terms of making sure that we were having dialogue. Certainly, there is politics and partisanship in the House, and that is okay, but we also need to make sure that we are always working for the best interest of Canadians.

The concerns around western alienation are very real. I have talked to many people who have given up hope on Canada. It is heartbreaking to speak with many constituents, more than I can count, who suggest that an independent path forward is the only option. I pleaded with them. We spoke about the issues and talked about how it is not too late, and to not give up hope on this country in spite of the many frustrations.

We heard rumours that the Liberals would be mandating a reduction in fertilizer, which could very well take away the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency. We heard rumours about further activism when it comes to the oil and gas sector, which turned out to be more than accurate when the Prime Minister appointed a criminal activist as his environment minister, and the Prime Minister went to COP26 and decided that the only justice in a transition was to put my constituents out of work. That is shameful.

From COVID challenges to the challenges with our economy, it is Canadians who are paying the price. I certainly look forward to being able to stand up for their interests.

Now on to the substance of Bill C-3. It is interesting that we see an issue that Conservatives have actually talked a fair bit about and provinces have taken action on, and that is access to critical infrastructure. Almost all Canadians would agree that a health care professional going to work or a patient needing care should not be denied access to a hospital. I would hope that is simply common sense, although as I am often reminded by many, including my father, common sense seems to be not so common anymore.

What I find interesting is that in the midst of this debate being part of this two-part bill, and I will get into that in a second, it is in the political interests of the Liberal government to now bring forward something that it saw a political opening for, whereas Conservatives had actually called for this sort of action when critical infrastructure had been placed at risk. Supply chains had been put at risk in the past, and a number of Conservative governments across the country have actually taken action to ensure that critical infrastructure is protected.

I would suggest that is a good thing, although I do have a few concerns about some of the ambiguous wording. I found it interesting that the Liberals are quick to defend the appropriate balance that needs to be had to ensure freedom of speech but also to ensure safety of health care workers. I am glad that there are some Liberals who are encouraging that discussion to take place. Certainly, when it does not fit their political best interests, they will try to shout down any freedom of expression that they can. As this bill, I would suspect, goes to committee, it certainly is one of those issues that we need to keep at the front of our minds.

Before I get into the substance of part two of this bill, I think it is interesting that we have what is kind of a mini piece of omnibus legislation. We have two very different subjects that are addressed within this one bill. I would suggest that this goes against, certainly the spirit, if not directly against what the Liberals promised back when they ran for election first in 2015.

There are two very distinct issues, and I would certainly be encouraged if the Liberals were willing to send it to the two different committees where this could be addressed. When it comes specifically to the issue of paid sick leave, I have some very basic questions. How many people does this affect? One would think that, if the government is planning on implementing paid sick leave for all federally regulated industries within the country, that question would be one of the first to be answered. However, I have yet to hear a Liberal member articulate the answer to that question.

There is some further ambiguity about what this actually applies to in terms of contractors or simply federally regulated services, but if a contractor works in a federally regulated service but that service itself is not regulated, what is the application? That is, quite frankly, why it is concerning that these two very distinct issues are put together in one bill. Had they been separate, it would have been certainly more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is time for questions and comments, but before we go there, I would like to remind the hon. member to perhaps think before accusing certain members of the House of certain things.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I will stay away from what the member might be trying to impute with his comments.

Within the legislation, we have the 10 days of paid sick leave, and no doubt there are a number of questions regarding that. We are hopeful it will go to committee, where those questions will be posed and responded to. It is important that we recognize that Ottawa plays a strong national leadership role on this. In British Columbia, I understand the provincial NDP government is now proposing five days of paid leave.

Does the member not recognize or see the value in Ottawa implementing legislation such as this, and the positive role and impact it could have on other jurisdictions?

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

Madam Speaker, if that member can clearly articulate some of the questions I have expressed about this particular part of the legislation and is willing to see it split up and sent to both committees to be studied, he is absolutely right: Ottawa plays a role.

I also hear daily from constituents, who are quite frankly sick and tired of hearing an Ottawa-knows-best strategy about all aspects of public policy within this country. There certainly is a great deal of frustration with how the Liberal government seems to only call for a team Canada approach when it has failed. I am fearful that is exactly what we are starting to see as this legislation goes through the process.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about urgency, about the importance of various issues. We heard about it during the election campaign and we prepared for 65 days. Considering the legislative agenda of election promises, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether Bill C-3 has come at the right time, when there are other emergencies.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is absolutely right. In fact, I find it tragically ironic that the day of the election was meant to be the day the House was back in session. That took weeks upon weeks, let alone the administration required to set up committees and whatnot. Even at this point, that sees us with only a few committees being set up and months of delays.

This is in addition to the prorogation the Prime Minister promised he would never do and all of that, but the Liberals will say that is simply old news and it was different because they are Liberals. Delays have cost Canadians and have probably cost Canadians' lives. I would suggest that Canadians demand leadership. They certainly have not seen it from the Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for recognizing his own family. It is really important to recognize the service of people serving the public.

My colleague talked about urgency, and he talked about people's lives being lost. Medical health professionals, again, have decided that people need to get vaccinated and governments need to implement paid sick leave.

We have not heard from the Conservatives when it comes to whether they support paid sick leave. Are they going to stand up for workers or are they going to let them continue to go to work sick and make that difficult choice? When it comes to vaccines, we still have not received a clear answer from them on that, either.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it very troubling that we would have the Liberals' coalition partners, the NDP, playing into the divisive vaccine politics we saw during the election. This caused a level of division and, quite frankly, mistrust when it comes to such an important issue and is something that should have been the definition of not political. The government decided it was more important to play politics than to do what was right for Canadians.

When it comes to the reality faced by so many Canadians, including workers, I find it rich that the NDP is standing up and saying it supports workers. Thousands of workers within my constituency are having their livelihoods shut out because of the activism of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

In fact, more Canadians decided Conservatives would be a better option than any other party in this country when it came to a plan that would get our economy working again. It is unfortunate that the Liberals would rather play politics and put people out of work than stand up for what is best for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was listening attentively to my hon. friend from Battle River—Crowfoot, and I thought I heard him say something very unparliamentary. I did not interrupt the course of questions and comments because I was not sure I had heard it. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to check the record.

If our hon. colleague referred to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change as a criminal, then that does violate our rules. It is not only inaccurate; it is spurious. I do not know if it is possible at this point to get a ruling or if the Speaker heard it. It certainly was unparliamentary.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for the point of order. I did actually call upon the member, right after his speech, concerning the subject.

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

Madam Speaker, if I said anything that was not true, I unreservedly apologize.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-3 this evening. It is a very important piece of legislation that requires not just the attention of Parliament, but also committee scrutiny.

Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bill C-3 should have been split into two separate bills. We are dealing with two separate issues here, one as it relates to health care workers and protests outside health facilities, the other as it relates to federally regulated sick days and the provision of 10 days for federally regulated workers. I am hopeful that, when this does get to committee, it is going to get the scrutiny that it deserves.

Let me also say that we are so fortunate in central Ontario to have an incredible regional health facility. The Royal Victoria Hospital is world class in its ability to provide care, not just acute care but all kinds of care led by Janice Skot, who is the CEO of the hospital. She recently announced her retirement next year and I wish her all the best. She certainly has seen the transition of the Royal Victoria Hospital over the 17 years that she has been there into this world-class facility.

In fact, just recently I was fortunate that we were in Innisfil to talk about the expansion of the Royal Victoria Health Centre into the southern tier of our municipalities of Barrie and Innisfil. It is expected that, by the time it is fully functional, it could service up to 250,000 people a year. This is an important part of our community. It is an important part of all of the regions of central Ontario and does a great service to our communities.

I consider many of the people who work there friends of mine; doctors, nurses, great people who do terrific work and have been there on the front lines since this pandemic started with great adversity, great anxiety. I cannot imagine, at the height of the COVID-19 situation, these doctors and nurses and all of those who work in this health care facility not only having to worry about looking after the patients coming into the facility, but also having the anxiety about how to protect themselves and their families. I heard many stories of health care workers going home and changing in the garage. They had moved their washer and dryer into the garage so that they would limit the risk of potentially transmitting COVID-19 to their family members.

When vaccines came, it was a sense of relief for many health care workers. There was a challenge in the beginning. I recall having a discussion with the then minister of health, in fact I would call it an emergency meeting, when our community was running out of vaccines, not just for health care workers, but also for long-term care facilities. We can talk about anxiety. Many health care workers who were in the process of getting their second vaccine were told that their appointments had been cancelled. I called the health minister to ask her on an emergency basis if we could get the vaccines that were needed within our community not just for health care workers, but also for the long-term care providers as well.

Let us not just look at the health care workers and the work that they have done and how they should be free of intimidation and harassment in their workplace, but let us also acknowledge the long-term care workers within those long-term care facilities because they had equally anxious times during the height of COVID-19.

I want to focus on a couple of things, not the least of which is the divisive rhetoric that has gone on. We saw this at the height of the election campaign when there were not just protests in front of health care facilities, but there were also protests on the political front as well. We saw some of those protests play out on the nightly news. We saw them in health care facilities. I believe that every health care worker should be free of any form of harassment, particularly when they are going in to do the job.

How did we get here? There is this divisive rhetoric, and we are now in a position where we are talking about implementing legislation to protect health care workers when we have never been in this point before.

Obviously, we have heard through other speakers today that we have criminal legislation on the books for dealing with protests, much of which is dealt with at the local level. Regarding this divisiveness that has gone on, I certainly saw it through the election campaign. There has been misinformation, and I would suggest that there has not been enough information on the part of government to allow people to make an informed decision on the issue of vaccines. I happen to think that everybody should be vaccinated. I am vaccinated; in fact, I have my booster shot scheduled for December 19. Vaccines are an important tool in the tool box in ensuring that people are safe.

However, there are many people out there, almost five million Canadians over the age of 12, who have not received a vaccine at this point for various reasons. I have been dealing with this in my office, with people calling. They are not anti-vaxxers; they are just concerned about their health and the potential risks associated with vaccines. Perhaps they do not have enough information to make an informed decision.

This is where the role of government comes in, to provide as much information as we can to people so that they make the right decision, to get vaccinated. Many of them right now are in a position where they are at risk of their lives and livelihoods being lost and actually being unable to provide for their families.

A year ago, when we did not have vaccines, we had lots of other tools in the tool box. We were talking about rapid testing, physical distancing, wearing a mask and washing our hands. Rapid testing seems to have fallen off a cliff right now. To accommodate those who perhaps still have that vaccine hesitancy and are not getting a vaccine, it is an important tool in the tool box that we need to be using.

I talked to someone in my riding about this recently. His entire family is vaccinated at this point, but he still has that hesitancy. I am using this example among many that I have received. He was told recently by his employer, after working there for 25 years, that as of this past November 1, he would have lost his job because he was unvaccinated. He has actually been extended now to January 29, and the reason he was extended is that his company is entering into a very busy Christmas period, so it cannot afford that loss of employment. In the meantime, the company has told him that it is going to rapid test him throughout that whole process.

Therefore, he is living with the backdrop of losing his employment and, quite frankly, he is scared, because he has family, including grandchildren. That reasonable accommodation that I spoke about still needs to happen today when it comes to making sure we are reasonably accommodating those individuals who at this point have vaccine hesitancy. We can do a much better job of educating and encouraging people to get vaccinated.

The other part of this legislation relates to the federal regulation on providing up to 10 sick days. I would agree with my hon. colleagues that people should never have to choose between going to work and staying home without pay when sick. Making sure we can accommodate those people who are in the unfortunate position of making that decision needs to be addressed as well.

As it relates to federally regulated industries having this requirement, there are many collective agreements that cover sick leave, but a small percentage do not. Those collective agreements can speak for themselves when dealing with this issue, but I will be interested to see, when this goes to committee, what we hear from all the stakeholders as it relates to the sick days.

In conclusion, a tremendous amount of anxiety still exists among everyone in this country, whether they are vaccinated or not. We have to tone down the divisive rhetoric. We have to make sure that in all cases, unequivocally, we are supporting our health care workers, who are doing such tremendous work to keep us safe. However, we also have to tone down the rhetoric and make sure we educate people that it is important to be vaccinated in order to deal with this crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, the member asked how we got here, and he seemed to imply that the reason there is a lot of misinformation out there has to do with the lack of ability or desire of the government to share information. I will be the first to say that information sharing is critical, and we should always do as much as we possibly can. However, the member seems to have completely glossed over the fact that there are a lot of people who are providing misinformation and who are questioning the science.

With all due respect, he gave a very reasonable speech today, and I am so glad he got vaccinated and he is getting ready for his booster shot, but there are so many people within his own caucus that feed this misinformation. I am wondering if he has had the opportunity to look inward and have these conversations with some of the members who, quite frankly, are in his caucus and spreading—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Could members please give other members the opportunity to ask their questions?

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Madam Speaker, to my point about this divisive rhetoric, there is no greater example than what we just saw.

I will go ever further. The Prime Minister has fed into this divisiveness. Members may recall when earlier this year the Prime Minister said that there would be no requirement for mandatory vaccines. Then, the day before he called an unnecessary election, he said there would be a requirement for mandatory vaccines.

One thing I have found out in my life is that, the more we push people, the more they lean back. Instead of the divisive rhetoric, which we just saw a perfect example of, why are we not working with people to better educate them and encourage them even more? If they are still hesitant, why are we not accommodating them? Why are we not accommodating them even more?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also confused by my colleague's comments, especially on what we should do with people who are still hesitating.

I am in favour of dialogue, and I think that we must have discussions and educate people. There are scientifically proven methods for dealing with the COVID-19 virus, including mask wearing, vaccination and ventilation systems. The COVID-19 vaccine is the most tested vaccine in the history of vaccination. More than 7 billion doses have been administered around the world. The numbers from the scientific community, reliable scientific sources, show how effective the vaccine is against COVID-19. At this stage, I do not see what more it will take to convince those who are hesitating to get the vaccine. In a way, I wonder if it is a lost cause.

What does my colleague think we should do with those who are going to reject the vaccine no matter what? We are putting ourselves at risk.

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

Madam Speaker, I made it very clear in my speech this afternoon just how important vaccines are. It was important for me in terms of my community and my family. I believe in the efficacy of vaccines, but the difficulty lies in the fact that there are still people who are unconvinced. I do not know what their reasons are. I use Scott as an example. His whole family is vaccinated and yet he is still a little concerned from a health standpoint.

Why are we not encouraging those people with more information, encouraging them to get vaccinated with proper information instead of this divisive rhetoric. That is the point I am making. There is too much divisiveness. Let us work to encourage people to get vaccinated. That should be the role of leaders in this country.