Debates of Feb. 10th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Federal COVID-19 Mandates and Restrictions

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

The member for Edmonton West is rising on a point of order.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I am engaged in the gentleman's screaming, I am trying to learn French. I have been trying to listen on the French channel, but I cannot hear the interpreter over the gentleman's screaming. I would ask you to advise the member opposite to tone it down a bit so we can hear the interpretation.

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

I appreciate that and will remind the member for Winnipeg North to maybe bring it down just a bit to allow the interpreters to hear his speech so they can translate it into the second official language and the Bloc can follow along.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about technology is that if someone finds it a little too loud, they can turn down the volume. That might—

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

Order. The request is for the interpreters to hear your speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to take time from my ability to contribute to this debate, but I have never heard in the past, whether in the Manitoba legislature or in the House of Commons, that the level at which I expressed myself is an issue. I do not believe it is an issue at this point in time, and I would ask that you retract the comment that was put on the record because I do not think it is appropriate. If I am wrong, I hope the interpreters will provide me with something. They know my email. I know other members who speak just as loud, if not louder.

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

I do recognize that we spend a lot of time on Zoom and spend a lot of time listening to interpretation. I think this is a valid issue, but I will allow the member to continue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

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

I will say to the member that there have been some challenges with our technology. I take it, from the intervention on this side, that there was a challenge. I will retract what I said if I have offended the member in saying that he was speaking too loud and we might be having trouble. I did not have my interpretation on either.

I apologize, and we will continue on. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has eight minutes left.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is important. I have witnessed many speeches over the years, in the House of Commons on this floor, and often we will find members who will express themselves in the manner in which they have. I can appreciate that the Conservatives are very sensitive on this issue, but the bottom line is that members are afforded the opportunity to express themselves, whether it is in a higher tone or in a whisper, and I would expect the same courtesy that has been provided to parliamentarians over the last 20 years that I have actually witnessed, if not first-hand, then indirectly.

There is a serious issue before us today. It is an issue of how we continue to build the consensus that is necessary. We should be recognizing the fine work that many jurisdictions have done. Prior to the interruption, I was using a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press that was printed today. I will continue on with that quote. It states:

The province was able to safely begin lifting public health restrictions Tuesday — not because of noisy big-rigs causing a ruckus by the legislative grounds, but thanks to "the vast majority" of Manitobans who "have done what they’ve been asked to do."

That is what we have been asking, and the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership by encouraging people to get vaccinated. That is the way out of the pandemic. It is not just the politicians who are saying it. We are also talking about the health care experts who are responsible for the general well-being of our population.

The story goes on to say:

“The vast majority of people have followed the orders. The vast majority of Manitobans have gotten the vaccine,” said Atwal. “That’s basically why we’re in the position now where we can loosen things.” Capacity limits at venues were relaxed, with 7,500 hockey fans allowed to see the Winnipeg Jets win a game at home on Tuesday instead of only 250, for example.

The relaxation of many of the rules and the mandates taking place in our provinces today is because the vast majority of Canadians have recognized the value of getting vaccinated. That is what we continue to need to emphasize. That is the reason why, as members of Parliament, we have a role of leadership to play within our communities.

That is why I asked a question earlier today in regard to the Conservative Party and its consistency. Why is it that the official opposition members cannot stand in their place today and say, as a caucus, “We are 100% fully vaccinated”? Looking at that, I do not believe it is much to ask for. In fact, if we look at other political entities inside the House, that is what we will see. That is the reason I highlighted what Brian Mulroney, the former Progressive Conservative party leader, had to say.

The motion talks about a plan, as if the Conservative opposition has it within its ability to declare the coronavirus an absolute non-issue. No matter what the Conservative Party members might think and believe, I prefer to listen to what science and health care experts are saying, and will continue to do so.

There has been a plan right from the beginning. We saw that plan put into place by the government and those working with the government. At times, even the Conservative Party, to its credit, supported a number of initiatives that we brought forward. It was a plan that was put into place to ensure that Canadians would be supported.

Whether it was direct support like the CERB, or supports such as the wage subsidy, these types of programs played a critical role in Canada being in a better position to rebound out of the coronavirus. The economic indicators that really matter, such as employment, clearly show that the plan is working. We will continue to work with the many different stakeholders, provinces, territories, indigenous communities and leadership, non-profit organizations and others to ensure a higher percentage of vaccinations and to ensure the provinces are in a better position.

We talk about rapid testing. The Government of Canada acquired millions of rapid tests. Members have asked where we are hiding them. There has been no hiding of the rapid tests. That is part of the Conservative spin we often hear about. In the months leading up to November, 2021, 85 million tests had been directly shipped to the provinces and territories. The population of Canada is 37 million, and we had 85 million tests by November, 2021. A very small percentage were actually utilized. Then omicron came and changed the page significantly. The Government of Canada ordered 140 million more rapid tests, which were brought in in January.

We recognize the importance of governments working together to ensure that the population, as a whole, is best protected. Whether it was supporting our seniors, people with disabilities, people who became unemployed or businesses that would have gone bankrupt, the Government of Canada was there from the very beginning, as it is today. Therefore, if they to try to imply there is no plan, I can tell the members across the way that part of the plan is to be consistent in listening to the health care experts and the science. That is something we will continue to do.

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

Before we go to questions and comments, I want to again retract what I said earlier. As we get into discussion in this chamber, it gets echoed on this side as well. I just wanted to make sure the temperature was ratcheted down, so I do apologize to the hon. member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North talked about the plan from the very beginning in his comments. Recently, the member for Louis-Hébert revealed what the Liberals' plan was when they made the conscious decision before the last election to wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians who were unvaccinated or skeptical of vaccines for political gain, no matter what the cost. I can definitely agree with that statement.

In northern Saskatchewan, leaders of indigenous communities have been working for over a year at eliminating vaccine hesitancy among their residents. For very legitimate historical reasons, indigenous people have a distrust of vaccinations.

Do the member for Winnipeg North and his Prime Minister really believe it is right to continue to marginalize indigenous people by continuing to disparage the unvaccinated?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

At the end of the day, I think we need to continue to promote, encourage and educate on the importance of vaccination. That is the best way out of this pandemic. A vast majority, 90%, of the population is onside and are double vaxxed. That is why it is so upsetting when the opposition talks about the vision. That is why we have been able to relax some of the mandates.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm and passion of my colleague from Winnipeg North. I am sure that he is a reasoned and reasonable man.

In his speech, he spoke at length about the divisions that we are currently seeing. I know that it is always easier to see the divisions caused by others than the ones that we cause ourselves, but let us leave that aside.

Something interesting happened today. The leader of the Conservative Party offered to have all the leaders of the recognized parties meet to discuss the situation. I think that this is a pretty interesting offer. Would the Liberals be willing to accept it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are many different ongoing discussions that take place between critics, shadow ministers, ministers, leaders, offices, house leadership teams and so forth. I would always encourage that.

I was pleased with the member's idea of ending the blockades. I would think that the member would agree that many of those Conservatives who went out to promote the blockades should be returning to those same people in a public way on their social media to say that it is time to end the blockades.

I look forward to seeing those tweets.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue the member identified was with the Conservatives going one way and then the other: going back and forth. Obviously, in the last two weeks the Conservative Party has identified itself with the blockade, and now it is standing up and saying, “End the blockade.”

It is not women and baby carriages. It is far more serious than that. Having encouraged the blockade, this expression of lawlessness, across the country, there is an element of hypocrisy in Conservatives now saying, “End the blockade.”

The other issue is that this has unleashed a wave, and even the Conservative Party will not be able to get this genie back in the bottle.

How would the hon. member respond to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition encouraging lawlessness from one end of the country to the other?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in his overall assessment. That is one of the reasons I really believe it is one thing for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in the chamber today and say, “Okay, blockades are bad and it is time for people to go home.” I welcome that and thank her for those comments; however, I would like to see those Conservative reform members of Parliament who did the tweeting and all the social media posts, who went out to the protesters shaking hands, patting backs, posing for pictures and applauding the blockades, to now start reversing them.

Maybe they could delete some of the tweets they put out. Maybe they could put, “Listen to what the new Leader of the Conservative Party is saying today,” on their social media.

There is a lot they could do to put some action to the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 2011, the member for Papineau said:

Enough of a Prime Minister who will not listen to anyone, anytime, anywhere.

We are about to enter into a third week of sustained and growing public outcry for change across this country. I think it is important we all recognize that one of the major reasons this is the case is because our Prime Minister immediately dismissed any opposition to his mandate as fringe, racist and misogynist.

I hear the same coming from this member today. These people are our constituents. They are hard-working, honourable, decent, intelligent people. They are proudly Canadian, and they reflect the vaccinated and unvaccinated, all ethnic backgrounds and everyone in this country. Many have done what they were asked to do, and those same Canadians, over half of Canadians, are calling for a plan to end COVID restrictions.

This member has honourable, brave Liberal colleagues who have challenged the Prime Minister's statements and actions as politically motivated. Canadians today, across this nation, are hoping and praying that they and more of their colleagues will support our motion to simply table a transparent science- and data-based plan.

Will the member encourage his leader to support the motion today?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said the Prime Minister needs to listen. However, just last week, I was on a Zoom conference with the Prime Minister and teachers in the province of Manitoba. I have had many opportunities to be present on virtual meetings where the Prime Minister is listening. I would like to assure those who follow the debate that not only do we have a Prime Minister who listens to Canadians on a daily basis but on a weekly basis and beyond. There are caucus members such as me who constantly share our concerns and thoughts with the Prime Minister, as does the cabinet and even members opposite. This is a government that listens to the population.

However, what we should really be talking about is the wonderful work that Canadians have done to get us to the point we are today. They are the ones who should be applauded. Those are the types of things we should be recognizing.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member for Winnipeg North says that his government is listening to the public.

Here in the House, we are in fact the representatives of the people. I think that it is perfectly legitimate, to get back to the request of the motion before us today, for Quebeckers and Canadians to know what to expect and to be provided with a plan to lift restrictions fully based on science and events, which are evolving very quickly. It seems to me that a plan is the least we can give them.

Does my colleague agree that it is completely legitimate for Canadians and Quebeckers to want to have an idea of what the government has in mind going forward when it comes to the reopening that we are all waiting for?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I will read specifically from today's Winnipeg Free Press. This comes from Dr. Jazz Atwal. It says:

“A handful of individuals who protest have no bearing on what public health recommends,” Atwal said at a COVID-19 media briefing. “It's as simple as that.”

The Prime Minister, members of our caucus as a whole and I suspect members of the Bloc, NDP and Green parties, and maybe even some Conservatives, recognize that we need to listen to our health professionals. That is all a part of the plan: science, health care professionals, the economy and people.

I listen to my constituents. Every day I am reading emails, as I know my colleagues do. We all have that responsibility. I can assure the member that members of the Liberal caucus take that seriously, and every day of the week we work to reflect the interests of our constituents.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

I have thought long and hard about my comments today. More importantly I took the opportunity to think about the values of empathy, compassion and understanding, and I think those values are missing from this debate. I think those values are missing from this conversation. These are values that I think members on the other side have neatly tucked away into a corner, because it is politically convenient for them.

I am not the first one to say this in the House, but we are a country divided. We are east against west, urban against rural, those with powerful unions to protect them and those who are independent and have no such voice, the vaccinated against the unvaccinated. I think we are families divided. I think we have friendships ended and co-workers who are stripped of that workplace bond. We have a government whose tired talking points and ideological drive to engage in wedge politics has paralyzed our nation, and we do not have to look further than out the front door of this place.

I think our political discourse is devoid of any respect and any nuance. I think there is no nuance in this place or in this debate, and if we ignore the nuance, then we run the risk of ignoring the trauma Canadians have faced over the last two years. By every indicator and every single measure, things are actually worse than they were before this pandemic, before the lockdowns and before the mandates.

Regarding mental health, there are kids in my riding whose parents are telling me they have not left their bedrooms and are not socializing. There is a growing addictions crisis. There are regions in this country where there are more deaths from opioids than from COVID. There is domestic abuse because of the circumstances of some. Depression, loneliness, economic hardship and class warfare are all worse, all driven by a lack of leadership, a lack of nuance and a lack of managing this pandemic in a way that accounts for changing science and the virus changing.

There are those who have not been able to see their families, those who have been restricted in good times and those, like me, who have been restricted in their worst times of grieving, because of restrictions, lockdowns and mandates. If the government ignores nuance, it risks further polarizing and politicizing a debate they have already done that to.

The government has othered three million Canadians, and more. It has forced many more who are vaccinated into a dead end of frustration of a population with one of the highest vaccination rates in the world; a dead end of frustration of a dependence on restrictions and mandates devoid of any real data or debate; and a dead end that has led tens of thousands into the streets of our downtowns and in front of our legislatures and this place because they do not feel heard, and the government continues. I have heard it today continue to ignore what is going on out there.

Our ultimate goal is figuring out how we can best control COVID-19 in our communities and then learn to live with something that every scientist has agreed is here to stay. Provinces are dropping restrictions. Provincial health officers have said it is time to move on. Our chief public health officer here in Canada has said it is time to look at and revisit these restrictions. All of these people have given government the advice to manage the pandemic differently and to put forward a plan, but when it is politically inconvenient to do so, the government ignores it. We know that. We heard that from members on the other side of the House this week.

I want to take a moment to speak to the specifics, because I do not think we have done that. I want to give members on the other side of the House the opportunity to explain themselves without disparaging Canadians and without othering them. I want them to not rely on the repetitive refrain of vaccination, which we have heard over and over again, to answer every real question coming from this side of the House.

I want to give the government the opportunity to answer this because, in this case, the case that I am going to talk about, the constant refrain does not explain the restrictions on travel. I want to give the government the opportunity to remove the unnecessary, unscientific obstacles to international travel. I want it to do it today. I want it to do it right now, because that is what I hear about when I go home.

The predeparture, on-arrival PCR test for fully vaccinated travellers makes no sense. It is not science. Canada's current COVID-19 travel restrictions are obsolete. They are out of step with the rest of the developed world, like the lack of a plan we have seen. In fact, they are entirely out of step with the G7, our allies. These are countries that we trust in military engagement and in law and order. These are countries we share values with but apparently not science.

Other countries have acknowledged this nuance. They have put forward a plan. They are in a different phase of pandemic management and that is what we are talking about. They have articulated a plan for their citizens to give all of those who are frustrated, who have lost hope, who are in dire circumstances, a plan to get out of this. We have not heard that from the government. We know that travel is no more risky than other activities and there is no scientific reason to single it out. I am tired of hearing the same talking points about vaccinations because I am asking very specific questions in this debate.

Canadians are subject to a PCR test upon arrival. They are fully vaccinated. They are tested on the other end. We know it is wasteful. We know that it is ineffective, and we know that it is not keeping us safe, yet we have a government that has dug in and engaged in this performative COVID theatre to do something in the absence of nothing for the sake of prolonging a pandemic for political purposes. That is what we are seeing.

We know there is a positivity rate of less than 1.5% for those who have tested. We know there is a forced quarantine leaving people at home, leaving them to make plans for their kids because they cannot return to school, and leaving them out of work. We know we have labour shortages all across this country and this is the kind of policy that needs to move with the science. We know that this is not science.

These restrictions have singled out our travel and tourism sector, the hardest hit. It is just one of the many examples that Canadians have questions about, and the government has no answers. Like many others, I got vaccinated so I am tired of hearing that refrain. I believe that it was in my best interests. I believe it was in the best interests of my family. I believe it was in the best interests of my community, and I have encouraged others to do it. I did it because it was my choice, but I will not ignore the frustration of so many who are protesting in the streets.

I will not stop demanding a plan to end these restrictions and these mandates that have torn Canadians apart because the government found it politically convenient to do so. I will not ignore the significant negative health effects of having people unemployed, underemployed and living in poverty as a result of a partially functioning economy for the benefit of a political cheap shot from the government.

The process of gradually reopening can be done in a safe manner and the time to do it is right now. We have heard that all across the country and we have heard that beyond our borders. If members of the House want to engage in a conversation about the values I talked about at the beginning of this speech, the values that I think we have tucked away into a closet in order to politically divide Canadians and pit them against each other, to change their tone and to engage in a nuanced conversation, that will have support from this side. A plan will have support from this side and it will have support from the member of Parliament for Thornhill as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Thornhill's desire to seek common ground to have conversations. I think that is important.

However, I did take exception to her comment about wedge politics and her suggestion that this side is trying to score cheap political points. We know that, a week ago, it was leaked by an obviously concerned Conservative staffer that the Leader of the Opposition had actually encouraged her side of the House not to ask the protesters to leave and to make this the Prime Minister's problem. As reported by Politico, the Leader of the Opposition had conversations with truckers and said, “Don't stop, it's working.”

For them to suddenly come out here and try to be the saviours of both the “freedom convoy” and the residents of Ottawa seems very hypocritical, given the context in which the Leader of the Opposition has been participating in the dialogue over the last week and a half. I am curious if the member can explain to me how she thinks she can support both sides of this, given the comments of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did say one thing. I think this is the Prime Minister's problem, and it is a problem of a lack of a leadership from the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister can talk to anyone he wants. He can call a press conference. He can pick up the phone. He can dial down the rhetoric. This is wedge politics, and it is being played by the members opposite.

We have heard it from members on the other side, those within their own caucus. They are not only hearing it from this side of the House, and they are not only hearing it from other opposition parties. They are also hearing it now from inside their own caucus.

I would encourage members on the other side of the House who feel the same way to say so, as today is Thursday, and we can use a third.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her passionate speech. She is very eloquent. Bravo.

However, I do have some nagging doubts about my Conservative colleagues' true intentions. On the one hand, they are proposing, indeed, demanding that the government present a plan to remove public health measures. On the other hand, they oppose Bill C‑10, whose purpose is to provide rapid tests to Quebec and the provinces, which is what will enable us to lift those restrictions.

I am trying to understand the connection between providing the tools to help us get out of this faster and demanding that restrictions be lifted.