Debates of April 21st, 2021

Government Response to COVID-19 Pandemic

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her question, but my head is kind of spinning, because I cannot seem to extract the truth in what she is saying. I do not think I made reference to the U.K., first of all. I was talking about the U.S., south of the border.

However, to answer the question, absolutely not, and there needs to be a safe process to recover the economy and opening Canada. Lockdowns are there to protect people, but if vaccines were in place, and enough of them, then these lockdowns would not have to be so severe. These drastic measures, which have had a huge mental health toll on so many people, would not have to be so severe. We have to factor those in. When I talk about foresight and having a long-term, sustainable vision on how to handle crises, that is exactly what I am referring to.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, for her speech. They were very heartfelt words.

In our province of British Columbia, it is clear that the most important place for transmission is in the workplace, and everywhere it is low-income workers who are most affected. They have to go to work or they lose pay, because they do not have paid sick leave.

Does the member not think that the first thing we should do is bring in real, effective, paid sick leave across Canada so that sick workers stay at home where they want to be and where we want them to be?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. I always enjoy his questions and the work that he is doing.

I believe for that workers who are unable to make a livelihood right now because they are sick or whether it is anything else that makes them vulnerable, this is a time when we need to provide support in real time, otherwise it means nothing. In terms of support for workers who are sick, absolutely, we need to respond to them and help them.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. However, I think the member inadvertently used the word “corrupt” in relation to people in the House.

I want to maybe not ask a question but just put a comment.

I am concerned that we are not doing what we should do as a nation to protect our population. I firmly believe that it is not the fault of any one political party, certainly not the fault of any one politician and has nothing whatsoever to do with corruption. I believe it is deeply rooted in the notion of federation where fear of offending a province is overriding what should be leadership to protect lives.

I do not know if the member has any comments on that, but that is my comment.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for raising this debate tonight.

I think that corruption at the core has to do with the lack of moral integrity and can be in the form of not owning up to that moral courage to do what is right. That is how I look at corruption.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member for Hull—Aylmer.

I first want to thank the health care workers and essential workers who have made life so much better for the rest of us because of their sense of commitment to be there in a very difficult time in our history. I would also like to extend my condolences to those who have lost a loved one because of the coronavirus.

Our constituents want us to work together and do whatever we can to battle COVID-19. When I think of solutions, two things come to my mind. We need to respond to the needs of our provinces. When provinces come to Ottawa, we need to respond in the very best way that we can. We also need to encourage people to continue to do the right thing and to get vaccinated.

We have learned a great deal through this process, such as physical distancing, wearing a mask, washing our hands. We understand the importance of a local manufacturing capacity. We need to review what has taken place over the last number of months. These are all very important aspects and I suspect they will be given the time that is necessary with respect to the people who make these critical decisions, whether it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, who is with this evening; or the Minister of Health; or other ministers; or the Prime Minister and so many others on all sides of the House who are trying to contribute positively to combatting the coronavirus, a virus that has killed, a virus that has caused so much damage to our society both from a social and an economic point of view.

We indicated at the very beginning that our first priority would be to have the backs of Canadians. That was stated by the Prime Minister long ago. We took a team Canada approach to develop programs that have helped millions of Canadians in every region of our riding. I believe the most successful program of them all is the CERB, which has helped well over eight million people. I could talk about how we supported small businesses through the emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the credit availability program. I could talk about how we listened to people with disabilities, our seniors and helped them with one-time payments.

We recognized from the beginning the importance of the national government working with provinces and territories and indigenous leaders. I could cite, for example, the provincial restart program, a program that invested billions of dollars in provinces so we could be in a better position.

The government has been open from day one to ideas and solutions, ideas that would modify programs that we had put in place from scratch; they did not exist before. The government has been there in a very real and tangible way. Canadians have learned a great deal as has the government. We continue to work with those who want to work with the national government and even those who might be reluctant.

I think of the return to school program, ensuring school divisions had financial support as well as many other organizations, non-profits, charitable and so on. The government has been there in a very tangible way, protecting industries, whether it is aerospace or agriculture.

We have a plan and we have been administering the plan. One would have to be blind not to recognize that. About 44 million doses of vaccine will be in Canada before the end of June. The population of Canada is 37.5 million.

I am concerned about the approach from the Conservatives, our official opposition. It has changed. It is not what it was before mid-June. The Conservative opposition began to shift its approach in dealing with the coronavirus back in the summer. It did this big time, and I can cite examples. I could even give a very good example from today. I want to do that, because I think it illustrates the real agenda of the official opposition.

Here is something that was said earlier today by the member for Brandon—Souris:

The Government of Manitoba has already signed a contract with one of the Canadian pharmaceutical companies and they just announced a deal with North Dakota to get our truck drivers vaccinated. I applaud those actions as it is clear that they cannot wait for the Liberal vaccine portfolio to be delivered sometime down the road.

What was the member's purpose in making that statement?

Let us think about what other Conservatives have been saying this evening. One Conservative said the government needs to have truth and honesty in what it is saying. I suggest that, at the very least, there is a lot of misleading taking place, and it is coming from the official opposition.

Let us look again at the statement made by the member for Brandon—Souris. He is not the only member who, on this specific issue regarding Manitoba, is trying to mislead Manitobans and possibly Canadians. He is trying to give the impression that because Manitoba does not have vaccine doses, the premier had to go to North Dakota to get more vaccines to support long-haul truck drivers who are going into the United States.

I will read from an article that came out April 1 in the Winnipeg Free Press. It is from Tom Brodbeck, a reporter who is fairly well respected. His editorial comment says:

The province has received 248,180 doses of vaccine (all of which it's had since March 26) and has administered 199,322 of them.... The province still has an inventory of almost 50,000 doses, an amount that is expected to soar with the arrival of more shipments this week.

Earlier today I was told that Manitoba had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 350,000 doses, yet well over 100,000 doses have not been used. The article that I read said 150,000.

The Conservatives use that to try to give a false impression that Ottawa is not getting the doses out. They say that something like 2% of people have received a double dose. Let us listen to what the health care experts are saying and let us stay away from the Conservative opposition. We know what is most effective. The provinces are administering vaccines, and they realize that the most effective way of protecting the population is to get the first dose out. The provinces know that. The Conservatives also understand that, but they choose to intentionally try to give an impression that 2% of the population has been covered.

I could cite many different examples, from over the last number of months, where the Conservatives have intentionally tried to misrepresent the reality. It is as if they are in full campaign mode and do not really care about what is actually happening in our communities. It is time for them to stop thinking about the election and start getting back to where they were in April, May and June 2020, when there was a whole lot more co-operation and the idea that the Conservatives could actually contribute, as opposed to being so partisan—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary to give way to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the parliamentary secretary refers to the middle of last June about the opposition to the Liberals as far as their COVID response. It was around this time that the CanSino agreement was being made with China, and that led to the problems we are facing today.

Does the parliamentary secretary not recognize that the incompetence of the Liberals has led to a big delay on vaccinations, which is impacting us today and costing lives and causing a lockdown? The Liberals have, by their choices, started to procure later on. Does the member not recognize that this third wave rests upon the Liberals, not on the provinces and not on the opposition? Will he and the Liberals not take responsibility for this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, wanting to be parliamentary in my language, that is garbage, absolute total garbage.

The Conservatives try to say it is because we were trying to get a deal with China. We had seven other agreements. There were negotiations that were taking place with other companies. The member cannot tell me of another country in the G7 or the G20, outside of the U.S. and the U.K., that has more doses on the basis of 100. Canada is doing exceptionally well in comparison.

To try to give an impression that everything was on hold because of something that went bad in China is just wrong because there were negotiations that were taking place with a large number of companies. Canada, as a result, is in an excellent position to ensure that Canadians will in fact get the vaccination, and we are doing superbly by working with provinces today in getting them, not only—

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

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to continue on with that line of questioning about vaccines because it is clear that we would have been ahead of the game, we would have had vaccines sooner, had we the ability to make those vaccines here in Canada as we once did. We had a Crown corporation.

Why does the government not take this golden opportunity and create a publicly owned Crown corporation whose sole task is to make vaccines and other critical pharmaceuticals for Canadians, as we once had with Connaught Labs?

Let us do that again so we would never be in this position again, and we would not have to negotiate with anybody. He can talk about how many companies we have negotiated with. Let us have a company of our own that can do this for Canadians so we are never caught in this situation again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, making sure that Canada has manufacturing capability is an excellent idea. This is something that, months ago, we actually supported by investing hundreds of millions of dollars, if not directly then indirectly, to ensure that is exactly what is going to happen. We have lost that capacity and we are restoring that capacity and we are committed to doing so. I appreciate the question.

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

Madam Speaker, just as a point of small personal record, I will get my vaccine on April 29. That is the first available date for someone 66 years old, in this province, and that is why I did not come to Ottawa for the budget.

Is the government open to the idea of pulling together a high-level group of our public health experts, our scientists, our epidemiologists and asking them this point-blank question: Should this country shift our focus to get to zero COVID as opposed to letting it live among us for longer?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member is going to be getting her vaccination and I am sure she will get a lot of attention. I hope she gets a lot of attention as members of Parliament are leaders within our community. I get mine on May 3 at the RBC Convention Centre downtown, and I am going to encourage my constituents, as I know the former leader of the Green Party will do likewise.

The one thing I am not is a health expert. Recognizing that, I—

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

On that note, we have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we could not hear the last part of the response by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

In the time allotted to me, I would like to start by congratulating the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on convincing the Chair to agree to this emergency debate about the third wave of viral infection. The member challenged us to hold a debate that would enable parliamentarians to work together. That is very important. However, I have to admit that, over the course of tonight's debate, I did come to wonder what had happened.

At the start of the pandemic, there was a wonderful and admirable desire on the part of all parties to work together. We were in a crisis, and it was crucial that everyone contribute to helping Canadians.

I was looking for an example of that wonderful collaboration to share, and it is funny how we can sometimes miss what is right in front of us or even right under our noses. I actually have a really great example to share from the Parliamentary Black Caucus. For almost a year now, this caucus of members of all political parties has been meeting to promote the interests of Black Canadians and to fight anti-Black and systemic racism.

We had a meeting again this evening. Members of all parties left partisanship at the door to discuss how to promote the interests of Black Canadians. The link between this example and the current debate is that cultural communities and racialized groups are more vaccine-hesitant, as we can see when we break down the data for Canada.

Two other observations must be made. The first is that these groups are overrepresented among victims of this virus. The reason they are more likely to die of it is that they are often essential workers. They are working in long-term care centres or in hospitals, on the front lines, making sure the rest of society is protected. They are on the front lines of the fight against the coronavirus. They are the most vulnerable.

It is so important that we set partisanship aside in order to protect the people who are helping maintain the appearance of a functioning society during the pandemic.

This means that we all have a greater duty to be more accountable in our words, in the statistics we quote, in the advice and guidelines that our health authorities offer us. As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to share this information and to give Canadians the facts. We do not want to scare them, cause panic, promote a point of view, be partisan or present facts selectively.

At this time, it is true that between 2.5% and 2.8% of Canadians have received both doses of the vaccine, so they are completely protected from the virus. This is true, and it is safe to say it. However, that is just one small part of the story. The other part, which is just as important if not more relevant, is that as of April 21, 25.9% of Canadians have received at least one dose of vaccine. We now rank third among G20 and G7 countries. That is a record. A more—

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

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his speech, but, it being midnight, unfortunately, the debate must end there.

It being midnight, I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)