Debates of March 23rd, 2021

Opposition Motion—Plan for Reopening the Economy

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fredericton, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Finance; and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join discussion of the opposition motion today and speak on behalf of my constituents in Regina—Lewvan and the broader population of Saskatchewan.

I want to read a couple of paragraph from the motion that I will be speaking to:

(i) COVID-19 restrictions have had serious economic and mental health impacts on Canadians,

(ii) COVID-19 restrictions have been advised by the federal government, including specifically by the Prime Minister on three separate occasions in November of 2020, as temporary measures to alleviate pressure on the public healthcare system,

(iii) public health tools, such as rapid tests, shared data on how COVID-19 spreads and vaccines, have not been positioned as permanent solutions to replace COVID-19 restrictions by the federal government, including in areas of federal competency like air travel and border restrictions,

(iv) the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have both released public plans for economic reopening, while Canadian officials have not yet given Canadians clarity on when regular economic and social life will be able to resume.

As well, there is the following resolution, which the member for Kingston and the Islands talked about:

the House call on the government to table within 20 calendar days, following the adoption of this motion, a clear data-driven plan to support safely, gradually and permanently lifting COVID-19 restrictions.

This is the motion brought forward by the member for Calgary Nose Hill, and I think it is incumbent on us to take it seriously. I know it has been politicized by several members of the Liberal government. This is not a politically driven motion; it is setting a timeline for when Canadians can regain their freedom. That is what this is about. It is about when we can return to life as we remember it prior to COVID-19. The U.K. has done it, with Prime Minister Johnson setting out a data-filled plan. The Biden administration has set a guideline of July 4, and I think it is unbelievable that anyone in the House could say that the Government of Canada should not have a plan to reopen our economy and return to pre-COVID-19 life as we remember it.

I think about my three children who have gone through COVID-19 and not seen their grandparents. I think about when my uncle passed away last spring, and none of us were able to go to his funeral. I also think about the families throughout Regina—Lewvan and Saskatchewan who have had similar experiences. Canadians across the country have sacrificed, and now they are owed a plan by the Liberal federal government for when they can get back to normal.

I think I realize why Liberals do not like talking about a plan in general. We see time and time again that when they do set out a plan or a goal, they feel to meet their metrics. They wanted to plant a billion trees, as seen in their throne speech last fall. They failed. They said in their 2015 platform that they were going to run modest deficits. They failed. They said they were going to reduce the number of clean drinking water advisories for indigenous people by March 2021. They failed. I think this is where we are understanding why there is such a hesitancy to provide a plan to Canadians. It is because they feel they will not live up to it.

One member asked if we wanted politicians or experts to make decisions for us. I want politicians of all stripes to listen to the expert opinions and data, and then make a decision. We are elected to make decisions. If members on the Liberal side do not want to make decisions, they should get out of the way and let people who will make those decision do so. I think it is time we had a government that started putting Canadians first, their mental health first, their economy, their safety and their plans for the future.

This motion is about hope for Canadians to have a better life. When we go down this path, people feel like this is just a Conservative motion, but I have a few quotes and statements to cite from people within the Saskatchewan government and business community that really add to the motion we are talking about today.

John Hopkins, the CEO of the Regina & District Chamber of Commerce, said, “The Regina Chamber of Commerce is of the view that restoring and growing the economy must be the priority of the Government of Canada as we emerge from the vaccination period. Millions of Canadians and thousands of Canadian businesses have been impacted by the pandemic. Now is the time to get the economy moving.” That is not a political statement and was not made by someone within the Conservative Party of Canada, but by someone who talks to business leaders every day across Saskatchewan.

Premier Moe said, “It is extremely unhelpful for the Prime Minister to be questioning the response of the provinces and creating a false choice between protecting the economy and jobs, and protecting against the spread of COVID-19.”

There has always been the argument by the Liberals that this is within provincial jurisdiction and they do not want to overstep their bounds. Time and time again the Liberal government has overstepped its bounds in provincial jurisdiction and now, when it is time to lead, Liberals vacate the premises and want everyone else to take the blame. Then they try to take credit for the pandemic spending, which all parliamentarians voted for and agreed to. When Canadians needed us, everyone, the Green Party, the NDP, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, came together and voted for supports for Canadians when they needed them. I do not think anyone is going to argue with that.

James Bogusz, the CEO of the Regina Airport Authority, said in 2020, “This airport helps this economy in southern Saskatchewan by stimulating over $800 million a year in GDP.... That is not a small operation. There’s so many jobs and lives that depend on the airport for income and related business. When there’s less aircraft operating, there’s less work. It’s such a big cascade effect. We feel very strongly that airports are worth saving.” This is the kicker: “We need Ottawa to step up.” I feel there are so many people across Canada who have that feeling right now, thinking that it is time for Ottawa to step up and lead. The Liberals have not done that, like others had done in other jurisdictions.

The Liberals have failed with many of their plans. The biggest failure they have had so far is the vaccine rollout. We have heard the numbers today about how we have 10.78 vaccines per 100 people and that we are 44th in vaccinations across the world and seventh in vaccinations per day. We are looking at how we can continue to have some hope and optimism when the Government of Canada has failed in its vaccination rollout. The provinces are ready to step up and do the job. My province is ready to step up and do vaccinations. It is just waiting for doses. There are drive-through vaccination stations in Saskatoon, Regina and other areas that are ready. They are waiting for more vaccines and for the Government of Canada to step up and deliver them.

Another stakeholder that has reached out on the topic of this motion is the Saskatchewan Cattlemen's Association. The chair, Arnold Balicki, sent me a note that said, “Food processors are seen as essential. Of course they are, along with other parts of the economy selected as essential, but they rely on so many other aspects of the economy not deemed essential. It is all connected. Opening up our economy will help businesses survive, which help our essential workers to keep providing our food and other goods and services.” Throughout the country, people have stepped up and done their job to ensure there's a safe food-supply chain. The Standing Committee on Agriculture has issued a report on processors and we know that more funds need to be given so that we can ensure that we have a safe food-supply chain. However, that needs to roll into a plan for reopening our economy and for Canadians to have the opportunity to not just rely on government programs and cheques, but to get back to work.

Every job is essential to the person whose paycheque depends on it. That is something we need to get back to and remember: Canadians want to earn paycheques, not to sit at home and collect government cheques. That is a where a safe, data-driven plan comes into play. There has been a vacuum of leadership on the part of the federal government. The Liberals have failed Canadians time and time again. I and many in Saskatchewan and across this country are wondering if the reason that the Liberals are unable to or are so scared of delivering a plan is that, as in the past, they will not meet their deadlines and fulfill their commitments and will let Canadians down again.

It is time to put a government in place that will secure our future and our mental health. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to get into the mental health conversation, which my friend from Cariboo—Prince George did such a good job at, but it is time to get Canadians a reliable plan to reopen our economy so that they can get back to life as we remember it pre-COVID-19.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the member started to use some quotes from the chamber of commerce and various organizations. I have a quote for him. Apparently the discussion here today has made its way to Queen's Park in Toronto and the Conservative government is weighing in on it.

According to a reporter at Queen's Park, the Ontario Solicitor General for the current Conservative government in Ontario, Sylvia Jones, said, “its not the role of the federal government to advocate for/against lockdowns.” She went on to say that the framework in Ontario is going well.

Can the member clarify for me if he and Conservatives, through this motion, are saying that the Ontario Conservative government is wrong on this and that we should be impinging on its jurisdiction?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member rose to his feet again. I have a quote for him: “Who does the member want the actual plan to be made up by, politicians or experts?” We were elected to make choices. We were elected to make decisions based on the best information from experts.

What I would say to him is that this motion is not about lockdowns. It is about a reliable plan to open up our economy and get back to our pre-COVID-19 life. Does this member think there should be no plan from this federal government to give hope and optimism to Canadians? Has he totally vacated the leadership position? Does he not want to make any decisions and have everything decided for him instead? If that is the case, he should give up his seat and go back to his other job.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about vaccines. This government is a minority government, which means it is the most democratic it can be since we have to negotiate to reach a consensus.

My question is twofold. According to my colleague, what percentage of the population should be vaccinated before the economy reopens? What are the top three priorities the Conservative Party would suggest to the minority government?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and there might be the answer in some of the statements we have heard from our Liberal colleagues today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development said there is a study they are looking at that is going to decide how to open and close borders and what restrictions there should be. I would love to see that study and have that information if it is available, so that we know what kind of data they are using to decide the border limitations and closures. If she has that study available, I would love it to be shared with us so that we could make more informed decisions as parliamentarians. For example, if there were a number, maybe the Government of Canada could say what vaccination rates we would need before we could have a plan to reopen, but there is no plan.

Also, I just received a text from one of my constituents asking, if someone has had COVID-19, are they in line to get a vaccination if it does not cover variants? Does someone need to get vaccinated again if they have already had COVID-19?

These are all questions that, if there were a safe plan to reopen and the government had done its job and given more information to Canadians, we would have the answers for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns when my colleague says that he does not think that experts should be listened to as a priority. We know that experts are saying that the virus is harder to control in workplaces where there are higher transmission rates when workers do not stay home when they are sick.

We have been asking the Conservatives if they support access to 10 days of paid sick leave. As we know, it is an important, data-supported tool for stopping the spread of the virus. Does he support that?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague had listened to my speech, I did not say that experts should not be given the opportunity to speak on what they know. I said that we should take that expertise, but that politicians were elected to make the decisions. That is why Canadians have this place. We should get all the expert advice and data, make case-by-case decisions and have a plan to give Canadians hope.

I would ask my hon. colleague not to put words in my mouth. We should take the expert opinions. However, people are put in the chamber to make those decisions to have a safe plan for Canadians to have hope and optimism that in the future they can get back to their pre-COVID‑19 lives.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Quebec and Canada were hit hard by the COVID‑19 pandemic.

I clearly remember Premier Legault's and the Liberal Prime Minister's press conferences. They were daily events that everyone tuned in to religiously to hear about how the coronavirus would affect our health, our jobs and our lives. There was even an expression the Premier of Quebec used back then: “We're putting Quebec on pause”. That pause was supposed to last a few weeks. It went on for many more weeks and months, and now it has gone on for over a year.

We remember how people stood together. Across Quebec, rainbows and that slogan, “Ça va bien aller”, were ubiquitous. At the time, everyone though everything really would be fine. Good things happened. Political parties set aside partisanship, and the House of Commons unanimously passed unprecedented support programs in response to the calamity. That was what had to be done.

At the time, members may recall, we did not know how to protect ourselves from the coronavirus. We had no vaccine and no idea when it would be available. PPE for health care workers was scarce. I will never forget March 2020. Fortunately, Canadians listened, they followed provincial health guidelines and confronted the threat together, a threat we are still confronting today.

However, the Liberal government, which had a duty to warn Canadians of the threat to our country, failed. The first reason is that it scrapped the early warning unit whose mandate was to predict this exact kind of situation. Instead of preparing to protect Canada, the Liberal government sent tons of protective equipment to China. When asked to provide equipment for health workers in the provinces, the government was slow to do so. When asked to close the borders and take action to prevent COVID‑19 from entering the country, it did nothing. When asked to take action to provide rapid testing immediately, it failed.

After seeing the Prime Minister on his front steps, it became clear that the Liberal government was quick to advise Canadians to take action to protect themselves, but it was slow to act itself. One thing is sure: Canadians and employers have been listening. Today, what we are asking for and what Canadians want is a plan. Canadians want to know one thing from the government. They want to know when the sacrifices they have made over the past year will finally end.

Everyone around the world agrees that mass vaccination is the most effective way to reopen the economy and get back to normal. Unfortunately, this government failed to provide vaccines quickly to Canadians, such that we are lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to the vaccination rate. Canadians need transparency. Canadians want to have a clear indication of the effects of vaccination and the moment when vaccination will allow them to get back to normal life.

That is why the Conservative Party moved today's motion, to call on the government “to table within 20 calendar days, following the adoption of this motion, a clear data-driven plan to support safely, gradually and permanently lifting COVID‑19 restrictions”.

Lockdowns and restrictions were put in place to give the government time to come up with permanent solutions such as vaccines, rapid tests, and a capacity to screen variants. These tools exist now. The problem is that the current Prime Minister is incapable of ensuring that they are widely used across Canada. Canadians want the government to tell them when and how we can safely and permanently lift the restrictions. The provinces are also asking the federal government the same thing. This plan is more than necessary and the federal government does not seem to realize that it has an important role to play.

It must first answer to those who have suffered the most during this pandemic. I will name a few groups that have suffered. First and foremost, I am thinking of Quebec and Canadian women, the first on the front lines of the health network, the first to leave their jobs to take care of their families. Unfortunately, they are also the most affected by domestic violence. Quebec is facing a dramatic increase in the number of femicides. According to a Radio-Canada article, there were six murders linked to domestic violence in just one month in Quebec, when there are usually one dozen a year on average. In Canada, in 2020, 160 women died from a violent act, which corresponds to one woman killed every two and a half days.

Claudine Thibaudeau, a social worker at SOS Violence Conjugale, told Radio-Canada the following: “The pandemic has been used by violent partners as a pretext to exert more control in the relationship. We feared this would happen, and it has. Many victims of domestic violence have also put off considering breaking up.” As a result, there could be a second crisis ahead.

We owe all women transparency and, most importantly, a plan, to end the spiral of violence that many women are experiencing. We must especially prevent the spiral from escalating by ensuring that domestic violence organizations are able to plan for a potential second wave of violence.

We also owe young Canadians a plan. According to Santé Montréal in Quebec, more than one in five young adults perceive their mental health as fair or poor. In Montreal, 46% of young people aged 18 to 24 report symptoms of generalized anxiety or major depression; in other regions of Quebec, that figure is 31%.

With the coming of spring, we see that the police are ticketing more and more young people who are not abiding by the public health guidelines. Young people also have the right to know when they will get a vaccine and when they will get their freedom back. Teens will be teens, and we cannot expect them not to act their age.

I am thinking of our seniors, most of whom have not had any contact with family for months. Too many Canadian seniors have died alone. Seniors who have been vaccinated have the right to know when their vaccine will give them more freedom.

Today, we learned that, starting March 24, the Government of Quebec is allowing dining rooms to reopen in long-term care facilities where over 75% of residents have been vaccinated for at least three weeks. At least these people now know part of the plan. What is the federal government's plan? What vaccination rate does it consider to be the threshold for lifting the health restrictions?

Businesses are waiting. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, many small businesses are no longer in business or are unsure of their future. The CFIB itself now has 15,000 fewer members as Canada enters a second year of the pandemic.

Borders are another issue. Everyone was calling for border closures at the start of the pandemic, but the Liberal government was conspicuously absent. At the time, there was no vaccine and no rapid test. Nobody really knew how to treat COVID-19 patients. Ventilators were in short supply, and the borders were open. Now, we have vaccines and rapid tests. Treatments are getting better and better, and the federal government has worked out how to keep the border more tightly closed than at the height of the pandemic. Is the Liberal government planning to take rapid testing into account in any way? Is it planning to take the vaccinations into account?

Hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers will be returning to Quebec from their winter homes in Florida in the days and weeks to come. The vast majority of them have been vaccinated. They should not have travelled, but they did anyway. These people will come back. Will they have to stay in a hotel for the mandatory quarantine?

Let me be clear: The at-home quarantine should be maintained, but these people are expecting a clear plan because the situation is not the same now as it was at the start of the pandemic.

Canadians have been exceptionally resilient. Now they need leadership. The motion seeks to give them hope again. After giving so much for the common good, they deserve to have the assurance that things will improve, that the temporary measures will not become permanent and that there will be value added for everyone at the end of this vaccination process. What do scientists think? When do they think the measures could be lifted? Does the government plan to have rapid testing in place and improved screening capabilities for variants? What measures will the government take?

With current vaccination rates so low, we may have to keep the safety measures in place a little while longer, as we have seen in other countries, but we are also entitled to know what vaccination rate the Canadian government considers to be the threshold for taking action to improve the situation.

There is no need to wait for the last case before announcing what is on the horizon. Action can be taken immediately, and that is what we expect the Liberal government to do. It is also what we expect through today's motion. I hope that members of the House will adopt this motion so that we can all have a clearer vision of our future.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech, he mentioned the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec. In fact, the premier and the Prime Minister were together a few days ago in Quebec, looking at how we could work together, in collaborative ways, collaborative federalism.

The Prime Minister has now had over 26 meetings with premiers from across the country.

How does this motion fit within collaborative federalism and our working with the provinces and territories to look for solutions together, to have the provinces determine when they can open their economies safely, while being supported by the federal government in that effort?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Guelph for his question.

I recall many clashes between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec, because the Prime Minister could not give Quebec everything it needed to deal with the pandemic. I remember that very clearly. However, my colleague from Guelph does not seem to remember much of this.

I do not remember seeing the first ministers making announcements together, standing side by side. I remember the first ministers all going their separate ways and one premier trying to make do with what the federal government gave him.

That is what I remember, not the other 26 meetings, not counting those from last week, the meetings to prepare for an election that the Liberals seem so desperate to hold as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I do not know if he heard the speech I gave a little earlier today. I spoke about several interesting tidbits that I had read in Alec Castonguay's book about the handling of the early days of the pandemic. I do not know whether he has also read it.

I learned that the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, which reports directly to the Public Health Agency of Canada, was unable to sound the alarm in December 2019 about the virus in Wuhan, China, because of a lack of staff and funding, seeing as Stephen Harper's government had decided in 2014 that these scientists' work was not important enough. The situation did not improve with the arrival of the Liberals in 2015.

This shows that there was no plan for dealing with a pandemic. The Liberal government has proven this from the start. It is flying blind. It had no plan.

Does my colleague believe that it is realistic to give the Liberals 20 days to table a plan for emerging from the crisis and to lift COVID-19 restrictions when the majority of the population has not even been vaccinated yet?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for the question.

I remind her that the rapid response team was created by the Harper government. It was dismantled by the previous government, which was quite unfortunate. It seems information was going everywhere but the right place, which is why we did not get a warning and ended up being caught off guard.

My colleague wants to know whether it is too much to ask the government to present a plan within 20 days. I think it would be more worrisome if the government has not already thought about a plan for getting out of this crisis and for getting Canadians vaccinated faster so that we can go back to normal as quickly as possible.

If the government is unable to give us the figures and forecasts in the next 20 days, that would mean it has not even started working on them yet. I think that would be even worse. The member should be even more concerned if the Liberal government is unable to answer these questions and present a clear plan within 20 days of the motion passing.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, generally, today, there has been a discussion about the use of science. I want to ask the member to comment on perhaps a selective use of science.

I want to thank my wife for pointing out to me a Cochrane review that was done on the use of a PCR test, which has been the fundamental barometer of our approach to COVID at a federal and provincial level.

The gold standard is the Cochrane review. A specificity and sensitivity ratio for a test to actually diagnose this type of thing should be over 80%. Only three of 21 tests that were reviewed by Cochrane review, the gold standard in the medical community, showed any specificity or sensitivity over 50%. Its conclusion was that this should not be used to prioritize patients for treatment and that the diagnosis needed other things in relation to this.

Could the member comment on the selective use of science?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to conclude my comments today, I want to be clear. We are not asking the government to lift the restrictions right away or to infringe on areas of provincial jurisdiction. We are asking the federal government to take into account the current reality and the availability of resources when it comes to vaccines, testing and treatment. We are asking the government to tell Canadians what it intends to do to get out of the crisis. That is what is important.

Canadians have the right to know what to expect. They have the right to know what will enable the government to ease the health measures and to encourage Canadians to get vaccinated because, at a some point, the government will be able to give Canadians some good news.

Right now, the government seems unable to tell us anything about the future. It is managing the crisis on a day-to-day basis, which is not good. That is doing a lot of harm to the economy and to the health of Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has approximately 14 minutes for his speech.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to our motion.

A plan is basically very simple. When you have a plan, you give guidance and you know where you are headed. This situation is not an easy one. It is an extremely complex situation to manage. This has been the case around the world from the outset.

However, when someone is in a position of leadership and managing a government, they must be able to develop a series of plans and provide clear guidance. The problem we have had from the start of the pandemic in Canada is that, when it first hit us, we were all waiting. First, we were waiting to see how the government would react to a crisis that was rapidly coming into focus around the world.

We called for the creation of an emergency health committee, which met to start asking questions. I attended the January 31, 2020, meeting and I asked some very simple, basic questions. I asked the officials there about their plan and about what they were working on at that time. I asked them what measures they were taking under the Quarantine Act. They told us that they were getting set up and starting to look into it. I found that baffling. We could see how quickly things were moving around the world, yet in Canada, officials were telling us that they were starting to look into it.

We kept asking questions here, in the House, and in committee, but we never got any answers. We figured that maybe the officials were not quite sure where to go, but that at least we had a government, a Prime Minister, a few ministers and people in place to lead us. As a former member of the armed forces and business owner, I found myself thinking about what I would do in a global situation like this. I would create a council of war or emergency council that would meet 24-7 to make urgent decisions. During world wars and all emergencies, we expect the government to sit down and make quick decisions, and this situation is no different.

When we knew that the virus was coming, the first thing we expected from the government was a decision on the borders, a plan. In response, we were told that everything was fine, that there was no risk, no problem. We saw that the virus was starting to enter. Since the virus came from China, we were initially concerned about the flights coming from there. Then there was Italy and the flights from Europe. Every time we asked a question about public safety, we were told that there was no problem, that our officers were providing information.

That is okay, but we saw that other countries were taking draconian measures by closing their borders and putting control systems in place. Asking for a plan is nothing new. We have been asking for one all along. I want to mention that we knew that the situation was not easy to assess, we knew full well that it was an unknown virus with varying effects.

As the weeks went by, we saw countries get organized and react. Watching the news we saw that countries were moving teams on the ground and things were happening. In the meantime, in Canada, we were told that there was no problem. Looking back at our initial concerns, our questions were legitimate. In an emergency situation, we usually want a plan. We did not have one, we simply got inane answers.

Obviously, the virus got into the country. It spread, particularly in long-term care homes in Quebec at the start. The virus obviously attacked vulnerable people and, today, over 20,000 Canadians have died because of it.

The government says that it is easy for the opposition parties because all they do is complain and ask questions. It is true that it is easy to do that. However, when we have been asking the right questions from the start and not getting any answers, we have the right to be concerned and to think that there is starting to be a major problem. That has always been the case.

Then the financial measures were addressed. We had to help businesses and go into lockdown. The Conservatives agreed. We knew that it would cost a lot of money, but we wanted to do our job. We had to step back and help businesses and Canadians. However, we wanted guidelines to be put in place to prevent abuse and so that the money would actually go to businesses that had to shut down and to people who lost their jobs.

The government's response was that Conservatives were trying to block the process and did not want to help Canadians. I find that kind of response to legitimate governance concerns so insulting. We just wanted to ensure good governance in the midst of that very complex situation. We were not against helping people. We just wanted rules that would prevent problems cropping up later. We wanted to work as a team. The Leader of the Opposition even asked the Prime Minister to sit down and work as a team, but that did not work out.

Once again, that is how it has been for the past year every step of the way. Every time we asked for a plan, there was no plan. Financial support measures now amount to $400 billion, and there are some incredible questions being asked about how things were done that could have been avoided.

We are not looking to nitpick and identify minor problems. We are dealing with facts and situations that are blowing up in our face. Let us consider vaccine development. When these efforts began, we learned in oral question period that the federal government had conducted negotiations with CanSino, a company controlled by the Chinese communist regime. Clearly, the Chinese government decided to thwart us and stopped the samples at the airport by prohibiting their export to Canada. We lost three months because it was not until three months later that we learned about the Chinese manoeuver. We then had to renegotiate with other companies. We do not know the details of these agreements and we do not know what was negotiated. The only thing we are told is that Canada has the largest number of vaccine doses in the world, even though we know that the Canadian vaccination rollout is lagging behind that of other countries.

That is why we are asking questions about the planning process and about plans. When we see the decisions that were made, it seems to us that there were other ways things could have been done. If there is a problem, why does the government not sit down with the opposition leaders in private and ask them to make arrangements to figure out a solution together? Everyone would have been happy to do that because this was not a situation where we were trying to score political points. It was not a situation where we woke up in the morning and said to ourselves that we were going to ask the government questions to cause trouble for it. We were not there for that. We were all in the same situation. We all had to stay home and attend too many Zoom meetings. We are tired of Zoom meetings. We all want to be done with them. Business owners, residents, everyone in our ridings is fed up.

As a result, when we say today that we want a plan, we just want something to assess. The government needs to stop saying that the provinces bear all the responsibility because we already know that they are responsible for administering the vaccines and screening people. All the Prime Minister needs to do is tell people when every Canadian will be vaccinated.

While the government says that we will all be vaccinated once by July 1, there is one small problem. One dose of vaccine is not enough, and a second dose is needed to be considered fully vaccinated. What happens then? If plan A is that everyone receives one dose of vaccine by July 1, this still raises the same concerns, the same uncertainty around the administration of the second dose of vaccine. If that is the plan, clarification is needed, otherwise everyone will think they are free and clear and they can party beginning July 1, when that will not be the case. The government seems to be waiting to tell us, because it knows very well that this is problematic.

Political calculations are being made right now. However, the real calculations to be made should be about the mood of Canadians, their mental health and the disillusionment of businesses that have had to close. That is what is most important. When we ask for a plan, we simply want to be given the real story and told where we are headed. We will appreciate our government for doing that, but as long as it keeps this a secret, everyone has doubts, and that is where things go wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member was talking, to my understanding, he kept saying that all the Conservatives are doing through this motion is asking for a plan, and that they just want to know what the plan is. However, the motion actually calls for a lot more than that. The motion calls on the House to table a plan within 20 calendar days following the motion outlining the exact process.

The member before him criticized me for my previous comments when I said that we needed to listen to experts, because experts inform us. Yes, it is our job to make decisions, but it is our job to make policy decisions, not to implement actual policy.

I wonder if the member can comment on the discrepancy between what I understood him to say and what is actually written here about bringing back something concrete in 20 days.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a simple answer to that question.

The pandemic has been going on for so long that the government should not even need the full 20 days because it should already have a plan. On November 12, 2020, workers in the airline industry on forced leave called for a plan. On February 19, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business called for a plan. On March 16, Unifor-Québec called for a plan. This is not the first time the government has been asked for a plan.

We are here to represent our constituents and to answer questions from them and from groups. We would like the plan within 20 days, but it should already be written. It is surely saved on a computer somewhere, so the government should hit send. If the government has not come up with any kind of plan in the past year, then we have a serious problem.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles to clarify something.

With point (ii) of the motion, the Conservative Party seems to want to make the temporary restrictions permanent. Quebec and the Canadian provinces are responsible for what happens in health care within their borders.

Is point (ii) an indication that the Conservative Party wants to interfere in Quebec and provincial jurisdictions? Does it want whatever comes under federal jurisdiction to be permanent? Which restrictions should be permanent?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

The last thing the Conservative Party wants is to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. Unlike the Liberal Party, decentralization is what we are pushing for.

However, in a health emergency like the one we are currently experiencing, we expect the Public Health Agency of Canada to issue clear guidelines so that the provinces can do their job. When the guidelines are not clear, governments do not know what to do. That is problematic.

When we ask for temporary measures to be made permanent, we are talking about health measures that will be adopted by the provinces, and they can apply them as they see fit. It is the lack of clarity that is causing the biggest problem.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

He touched on many things in his speech. I know he is very cognizant of my riding, which is a very rural riding. We have had a lot of issues, in particular our small businesses and the huge impact that COVID-19 has had on them. Many of our constituents have health issues. They are talking about a 60% drop in cancer surgeries. There is a huge increase increase in mental health issues. Also, Canadians right on the border are coming back to Canada and going to rural areas. When they take the required COVID test, they are supposed to call Purolator. However, Purolator will not come to rural areas to pick those tests up.

I wonder if the member could tell the House how this plan would help these people in ensuring they can move forward with their lives.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We want clarity, and we want the plan to be public or clearly laid out, because it has to cover all parts of Canada. Provincial jurisdiction notwithstanding, the federal government is the one making the decisions, and these decisions have a direct impact on the provinces.

The provinces do not all have the same vaccine distribution infrastructure or the means to put it in place. For example, Quebec and Ontario have many more resources than Manitoba and New Brunswick. There are weaknesses there. Without encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, the federal government needs to give the provinces the means and the tools they need to do the work and deal with this extraordinary situation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:32 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.