Debates of Feb. 10th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Federal COVID-19 Mandates and Restrictions

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a member of the international human rights subcommittee with me, and I look forward to working with him on many of the global issues we will be tackling in that committee.

In terms of his question, I think there is a real need for a conversation, a serious, non-political, science-based conversation, on how we reduce restrictions and protections. As we move forward, we all want to get out of COVID-19. I want my children to go back to school. I want my daughter to—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we stand at a pivotal time in our country's history. Canadians in every corner of our land have been profoundly affected by what has been described as a once-in-a-century global pandemic. I think it is uncontroversial to assert that no one could ever have envisioned the sweeping and dislocating health, economic, political and social ramifications of COVID-19.

Over three million Canadians have been infected. Some 35,000 Canadians lost their lives, all too frequently suffering and dying alone. Families have been separated. Important celebrations and markers in people's lives have been cancelled. Workers have lost their incomes, and small business people their enterprises. Culture, education, travel and friendships have been negatively impacted. Mental and physical health have been seriously tested.

It is fair to say that Canadians are exhausted and have been challenged, not only by the virus but by the severe disruptions they have had to endure to respond to it. I also think it is fair to acknowledge that policy-makers at all levels of government have had to act in unprecedented circumstances. We have all had to improvise at times and make the best decisions we can based on an imperfect understanding of the facts and the vicissitudes of an uncertain future. It is a stark reminder that Mother Nature is bigger than all of us and impossible to outsmart.

As such, I think some grace and generosity of spirit would be helpful for our country at this time. However, it is also imperative that we acknowledge that mistakes have been made, important responsibilities have been breached and circumstances have been exploited, and I believe that blame is shared by every institution in our country.

Government leaders have seized upon the pandemic as a political opportunity to engage in wedge politics and to seek partisan advantage. Political parties have exacerbated divisions and irresponsibly fanned the flames of insurrection. Public health agencies and officials have failed to adequately prepare our nation for this emergency. This is particularly unforgivable when we had previous warnings and blueprints to do just that. Numerous policy reversals and errors were made, and certainty has been inappropriately expressed when data was unclear and developing. Large corporations have used shortages and economic vulnerabilities for excessive profiteering, and Canadians themselves have, occasionally unwittingly and sometimes deliberately, spread misinformation or hateful rhetoric online.

The result is that division among citizens has rarely been so sharp. An unfortunate and irresponsible oversimplification of issues has developed. Perhaps most alarmingly, a lack of transparency has stifled scientific debate, impaired legitimate questioning and allowed errors to persist when they have occurred. This is unhelpful, it is unscientific and, most importantly, it does not serve to improve Canadians' health or public confidence in our institutions. I believe it is time to recognize all of this and make changes where possible.

We are now fully two years into this pandemic. Times have changed, and so have our citizens. People are much better informed and have access to data and different practices from around the world. In many cases, they can now draw upon their own experiences. They have a much sharper notion of what works, what makes sense and what does not. They can spot inconsistencies and identify policy reversals, of which by now there are a myriad.

It is time to recognize that many Canadians have legitimate questions about the health policies and mandates they have been asked to observe. After two years of the pandemic, Canadians are understandably tired and frustrated. People have been making profound sacrifices, and they want to see their federal government take leadership by telling them there is a road map moving forward.

Let me be clear. Nothing justifies the spread of disinformation or the denial of science. Nothing justifies intimidating health care workers or holding cities hostage. While assembly, protest and expression are cherished values in our country, we do not and cannot make policy by mob rule. Equally, we cannot abandon vulnerable people to COVID by dropping all public health restrictions overnight, as some provinces propose. That would be irresponsible and driven more by politics than by science.

We know that seniors and those with vulnerable health conditions are at greater risk of becoming seriously ill if they contract COVID, and we must ensure that evidence-based public health measures are in place to protect them.

While COVID is still circulating in Canada and internationally, a vaccines-plus approach continues to be essential to the pandemic response. This includes layering vaccinations with timed and targeted public health measures and individual protective practices. As Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, has recently acknowledged, it is important and timely to re-examine public health measures to determine what the next step should be.

New Democrats agree. We believe it is both healthy and necessary to review our current policies based on data, science and evidence, both to confirm that we are on the right track and to make course corrections where we are not. We must not hesitate to ask searching questions and follow the science. Indeed, the very essence of science is questioning. We question giants such as Newton and Einstein. Surely, we can question the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. Frankly, given their performance failures to date, we must do so.

However, it is important to note that the motion before the House mis-characterizes what Dr. Tam stated. At a news conference on February 4, Dr. Tam responded to questions on vaccine passports and travel restrictions by noting that the federal government is looking at a “whole range of public health measures” and policies with the provinces and territories to determine what the path forward might be for a whole suite of these measures.

Importantly, Dr. Tam also stated, “maintaining layers of protection remains important to reduce spread, particularly as we continue to spend more time indoors over the winter and as public health measures begin to ease in areas of the country.”

This is prudent. We must recognize that as very high infection rates continue to challenge or exceed testing capacity, reported case numbers underestimate the true number of infections in Canada, and the ongoing high volume of COVID cases across Canada continues to place a heavy strain on our health care system because of increased hospital admissions and high illness among health care workers.

This motion is fundamentally flawed. It prejudges the science by coming to a conclusion before the investigation has been completed. While all Canadians, of course, look forward to a return to normal and the elimination of extraordinary public health measures, it is completely irresponsible to call for such before we know it is responsible and safe to do so.

In any event, some things are very clear. In order for us to move out of the pandemic better prepared for the future, the federal government must increase health care transfers to the provinces and territories. This kind of federal leadership will help it address staff shortages, increase capacity in hospitals and make sure that Canadians can get the care they need when they need it. This is a lesson of COVID that cannot wait to be implemented. We have to ensure that more beds are available in ICUs and general wards, and that surge capacity is better planned. Canadians must be able to get surgeries in a timely manner, and have quicker access to life-saving diagnostic tests and screenings for things such as cancer.

The federal government also needs to improve access to PCR and rapid antigen testing and personal protective equipment for all Canadian health care workers, frontline workers, educators and households. Testing and tracing remain core parts of dealing with COVID in any scenario, as we cannot manage what we do not measure.

Further, it is essential that the Liberals stop protecting the pharmaceutical industry and support waiving intellectual property rights on global COVID‑19 vaccines and technologies to get the world vaccinated. Immune escape variants will continue to emerge and threaten our hard-won gains unless everyone in the world has full access to vaccinations and other health technologies as they emerge. This is not just a matter of equality. This is a matter of self-preservation and self-interest.

One thing is certain. New Democrats consider ourselves to be the party of health care. It was through the vision, hard work and determination of New Democrats across this country that our public health care system was conceived and built. New Democrats will never stop fighting for Canadians to have effective, evidence-based public health measures and the strong, resilient and comprehensive public health care system they and their families deserve.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member suggests that he supports the TRIPS waiver on patent protection for COVID-related products. This is something that I know many members of the House, from all parties, agree on. Could he perhaps speak a bit more to that issue and its importance?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his leadership and support across party lines for a better policy for the Canadian government to ensure vaccine equity around the world. It is also a delight to serve with him on the health committee.

He is exactly right. It is true that billions of dollars of taxpayer funds went into the development of vaccines. In Moderna's case, I believe $2 billion, 100% of the funding for its vaccine, was paid for by taxpayers. Similarly, when Pfizer partnered with its German partner, it received I believe half a billion euros from the German government. It means this technology is publicly financed. It should be available for the public good.

Moreover, we all stand to benefit by unleashing the ability of every country in the world to obtain the ability to manufacture, distribute and vaccinate its own population. Any measure that works against that, by definition, is not only unfair but counterproductive. The Liberal government, at the World Trade Organization, still refuses to throw its support behind a temporary waiver of the TRIPS regulations to ensure every country can obtain access to vaccines and technology free of patents. The United States have said they would do it. I do not understand why the government will not do so when it is so important not only to help the world's population, but to help Canadians deal with the next omicron escape variant.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just last night, I spoke again with people in riding: a family who has made so many sacrifices and faced so many hardships. The financial, social, moral, physical and mental health of Canadians continues to suffer. Being stigmatized, ridiculed and divided by the government is wrong, and clearly Canadians have had enough. We need to listen to the science and the voices of the people who put us here, and provide some hope and inspiration. That is our role as parliamentarians.

Does the member acknowledge that we need to move past this ideological, rigid and divisive government and aspire to a reasonable, scientific and thoughtful exit plan for this pandemic?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my hon. colleague on the health committee as well.

I agree with much of what she said. I also talk to my constituents and share not only their fatigue, frustration and desire to return to normalcy, but also a desire for a more mature discussion of the issues in this country. I spoke to that in my speech. It is time for us to recognize that there are legitimate questions about the mandates and policies that have been implemented by all levels of government, and we need to create the space for Canadians with those questions to ask them. We also have to examine these questions based on data and science. That should be our guide.

Finally, I very much share my opposition colleague's desire for an evidence-based, thoughtful government that does not exploit this pandemic, as I think the Liberal government has been accused of doing by its own caucus. It is why I am a member of the New Democratic Party, because that is exactly the kind of government we will bring Canadians when we are elected.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway on his speech.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with several parts of his speech, including the issue of health care transfers, which should be dealt with immediately. The government must act now to come to an agreement with Quebec and the provinces.

Everyone certainly is fed up right now. My colleague said it well during his speech. However, we in the Bloc Québécois agree that the best tool for getting us through this pandemic is still vaccination and, of course, listening to public health.

I would like my colleague's opinion on patents. We know that this is a global pandemic, so even if we have a plan to manage the borders, which is a federal jurisdiction, we are no further ahead if other countries do not have access to vaccines. I would like my colleague to share his opinion on that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to that very important question about patents. I agree with the member that the position of the Canadian government is unconscionable, in that we continue to be a barrier to waiving the TRIPS waivers at the World Trade Organization. We are standing in the way of other countries being able to vaccinate their citizens.

I want to speak for a moment about patents in this country. At one time, the Liberal government boasted that we had the widest portfolio in the world. Now, we have one of the narrowest. There are fours kinds of vaccines: whole vaccines, gene therapy vaccines, composite vaccines and another type. We only have one type of vaccine, the gene therapy vaccine, that is really only made by two manufacturers. I do not know why Health Canada is not approving other vaccines, such as whole vaccines that are being used very effectively in countries with COVID, because that would give more choice to Canadians who may have concerns about mRNA technology. They could have access to whole vaccines, as Europeans do and as people in Asia do.

A Canadian company that has received money from the government, Novavax, has had its vaccine approved in over 24 countries, and it is still not approved here. We need to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

We have in front of us today a motion. The House of Commons is calling upon the federal government to table a plan to lift all federal mandates and restrictions.

What I want to do with my time today is outline why I believe the initial rationale for restrictions is perhaps no longer particularly pertinent and that there are better solutions to deal with those problems, and also outline why maintaining restrictions is coming at a sizable cost. I will then suggest some things other than restrictions that the government could be doing to address some of the challenges that we are facing.

On the first point, most restrictions in Canada were put in place to do five things: figure out what COVID was, contain COVID, give us time to get vaccines and therapeutics, incent people to get vaccinated and ensure that we had enough capacity in hospitals to deal with acute urgent-care patients.

I will run through each of those points very briefly.

First, we now know what COVID is. Sure, we need to do some research on long COVID and the impacts, and we absolutely need to make sure that we are detecting emerging variants around the world, but we know what it is and we have a good body of research on it. Therefore, I do not think that continued restrictions are giving us any gain or lead on that particular issue. Certainly the government has not presented any data to the effect that somehow continued restrictions are needed for us to conduct additional research. I would argue that would be very bad public policy.

The second thing is that the restrictions were put in place to contain COVID initially. Anybody in this House would be hard-pressed to say that COVID is containable. It is not. We are in an endemic state. Yes, there are variants that are emerging and we should be in a place to monitor those variants and communicate that to frontline professionals and ensure that our vaccines and our therapeutics are matching those, but COVID zero is not possible. In fact, many Canadians who were vaccinated have contracted the omicron variant, and so we cannot be operating in a COVID-zero situation.

The third point is that restrictions were put in place to get us vaccines and therapeutics. I am fully vaccinated and boosted. I encourage anybody who has not been vaccinated to consider getting vaccinated. Doing that is the best way to prevent severe illness from COVID.

On the fourth point, arguably—and we need to have this conversation in the House—further restrictions are not going to incent any more Canadians to get vaccinated at this point. If Canadians have not gotten vaccinated after all of these restrictions, they likely are not going to do so. Certainly the political polarization of the narrative on vaccination did not help with that cause. As my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway offered, some additional solutions we should be looking at include ways to understand why vaccine-hesitant persons are that way and then incent them in other ways, but restrictions are not going to move the needle on that any further. I have not seen any data to that effect.

The last point is to ensure that we have enough capacity in hospitals to deal with acute urgent care patients. We are in year three of COVID. If the federal government has not used its convening role to urgently bring the provinces together to say how the federal government can support additional capacity within our health care system, additional restrictions are not going to do that. It is completely unfair to ask the Canadian public to continue to restrict their movement, their freedoms and their access to certain areas because the federal government has failed to address this critical point. This has been a problem decades in the making. The pandemic laid it bare for every Canadian, and every member in this House has a duty to push the federal government to address the brokenness of our health care system, not only on behalf of all of our constituents but also for our frontline health care professionals. Let us not kid ourselves: Additional restrictions and asking Canadians to sacrifice are not going to address this issue.

If that is why restrictions were put in place and we do not need those anymore, what should we be doing? I am supporting this motion is because the government does need to provide a plan on how to fix the rest of these issues, but it cannot be through continued restrictions.

First, I call on the federal government to give us what is in the motion today: a firm plan on when all restrictions in their scope will be lifted, and that includes vaccine passports for air travellers, PCR testing requirements for international travellers and on-arrival testing. As well, I believe the government also has a duty to look at federal employees who have been dismissed because of their vaccination status.

Second, I ask the federal government to reinstate the pandemic early warning system that it shuttered, leaving Canada without a coherent system to detect emerging pathogens, and feed that into our public health system. That should have been done a long time ago. Restrictions are not going to solve that problem; only political will would get that done.

I call upon the federal government to use its convening capacity to ensure that there is a conversation among provincial governments on how we can fix the brokenness of our health care system. That should have started months ago. We should have been seeing the results of that by now. That needs to be started today. The government needs to lift the provincial governments up and ensure that we are adequately funded, and frontline health care professionals need to be leading that consultation, and not just a consultation, but an emergency plan.

I ask that the government, at all levels, recognize that it is wrong to use the removal of freedoms as a permanent fix to gloss over the brokenness of our health care system. We cannot keep saying that we should be removing freedoms to address a problem that the federal government has been loath to address. We have to move forward.

I also ask the federal government to realize that the way it has communicated information to the public over the course of the pandemic has been a disaster of epic proportions. At a time when the federal government was asking Canadians to trust implicitly in public health institutions, we had flip-flops on different advice and we had the national advisory committee on immunization suggesting one of the vaccines was not safe. At the end of the day, all that did was give fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

I have stood in the House of Commons many times and asked for the federal government to address the communication failures. That needs to happen right away. It is one thing to say, “We do not know right now, but here is what we are doing to find out.” That is the type of language that engenders trust. Going back and forth and calling people names if they are questioning why flip-flops occurred actually reduced trust in public health institutions, and that is something that needs to be immediately restored in a non-partisan way.

I ask all sides to de-escalate the rhetoric on the pandemic. Vaccination became a political wedge issue during the federal election. That has to stop. We should have been focusing on ways to understand why people were vaccine hesitant and then providing solutions to their questions and concerns, as opposed to calling them names. Conservatives always, throughout the pandemic, pushed to ensure that the government would deliver vaccines, because we understand they are a key tool in fighting COVID. However, the government chose to play politics with it.

To those who may be blockading public infrastructure today, you also have a duty of care to de-escalate your rhetoric and stand down as well. The word “rhetoric” is not the right word, and I rescind that, but certainly when it comes to blockading public infrastructure, I have opposed Occupy movements in Vancouver and Toronto. Ten years ago I opposed blockades on pipelines, and this is no different. We have to ensure that public infrastructure is accessible. That does not remove someone's right to peacefully protest, but what is happening on the Ambassador Bridge today needs to end.

I also ask the government to understand that the cost of maintaining restrictions at this point is greater than any other cost. We are seeing civil unrest and the loss of jobs, and the fact that restrictions are being used as a band-aid to deal with some of these larger problems is actually making things worse in the country. We have to move forward.

I have two more quick points. I would suggest that the government should have an emergency committee of Parliament that is all-partisan to figure this out. We should be doing that immediately and getting to solutions on some of these bigger issues. We should also be ensuring that we have vaccine production in this country. We still do not have adequate vaccine supply production.

There are so many things that the government could be doing. That is why we are asking for a plan and for restrictions to end. I would hope that all colleagues in this House understand that restrictions will not fix these problems in and of themselves, and they need to stop.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite encouraged when the Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that the blockades need to stop. The member herself has also talked about the end of the blockades. I see that as a positive step forward.

I also think of the members of Parliament in her own caucus who actually encouraged the people in the blockade by using social media to pay tribute virtually to them.

Would the member suggest to caucus colleagues that they should be promoting what the leader of their party said today through their social media and maybe even take down some of the pictures that have been posted?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that my colleague will not commit to coming up with a plan to lift restrictions. I mean, this is probably the most serious issue our Parliament has been faced with in a generation, and today that type of a question is not going to address any of the issues I brought forward. He did not comment on any of the proactive solutions I suggested.

Give your head a shake—not you, Mr. Speaker, but my colleague across the way.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her speech. I found some of the points she raised very interesting, particularly when she said that we should have the humility to acknowledge that we cannot know everything and that we will continue to learn a great deal during a pandemic.

There is a young medical student in Quebec known as the doctor from TikTok. He frequently posts short videos that refute certain claims by movements that are anti vaccines and health measures. His approach is to educate and communicate with people. As my colleague was saying, I believe that it is by using that approach that we can convince people who do not want to get vaccinated to do so.

In the same vein, does my colleague agree that the government plan to lift restrictions called for in the Conservative motion must be prepared based on scientific data provided by Dr. Tam and the Public Health Agency? Does my colleague also agree that there must be flexibility because uncertainties and unknowns may arise along the way? Does she agree that this plan should meet these criteria?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a sense of déjà vu, because it was basically a year ago when we all stood in this House and debated whether we should have a plan to end restrictions.

A plan to end restrictions is not saying that we do not want Canadians to be healthy and safe. What we are saying is that the impositions on Canadian freedoms and the impacts on our economy and on our mental health as a country are things that need to be weighed in the course of public policy, and right now, those costs are too high. That plan needs to ensure that we have input from average Canadians so that people who are sitting in corner offices or working at home on laptops are not the only ones providing that information. Yes, it needs to be science-driven, but it also needs to be driven by a population that is tired and fatigued and wants hope. The end goal has to be to end the restrictions.

We cannot solve these problems with restrictions any more. We need better public policy. We need to end the poor choice of restrictions. They should have never been normalized and they should never actually be normalized as ways to solve these larger systemic issues. They need to stop, and we need better solutions.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for her speech and for trying to lead by example in terms of de-escalating the rhetoric in the House of Commons. I think that even where there continues to be disagreement, we are well served by de-escalation, and not just in the chamber but across the country.

I want to zero in on something. My colleague used the phrase “public health restrictions” when perhaps she meant “public health measures”, the difference being that I think “measures” incorporates vaccine mandates as well as lower capacities, mask wearing and things of that nature. I am interested in some clarity on that.

I would say this on the other side. It is important to let public health officials lead this conversation, although I think it is a conversation that we should try find a way to have within our politics as well. In places where public health restrictions have been lifted prematurely, we have often seen a sharp increase in the rate of hospitalizations. That speaks to the issue that a lot of families are going through right now as their family members face a surgery backlog in the hospital. Restrictions are important in that context.

I wonder if the member wants to speak to that other side of the equation, which is how hospitals fill up when we do not have public health restrictions.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that public health restrictions should be informing our decisions as legislators. At the end of the day, we are charged with making these decisions, as are the ministers, and public health officials cannot make these decisions for us. Their opinions can inform our decisions but not make them for us, right?

As for the second thing, hospitalizations, we are in year three of COVID and we have not figured out how to fundamentally fix what happens when there are an extra 300 people in a hospital in a certain area, rather than continuing with lockdowns. We cannot continue this way. Our health care system needs to be reformed. We cannot expect society to shut down every time we have a surge of health care patients. That is just the reality. We are beyond that. If we do not get this, we are never going to fix Canada's health care system. It is going to be a tough conversation and we do have to de-escalate the rhetoric in it, but I have to say that the restrictions are not going to fix that.

I will close with this: I encourage anybody who has not gotten vaccinated yet to do so, but continued restrictions are not going to change their mind after six months. We have to look at other ways to incent people to get vaccinated, and we have to fix our health care system.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the seriousness of the situation that Canada as a whole is facing. This nation is facing a crisis that continues to escalate, and I am very glad that we are having a democratic debate in the House on the path forward.

Over the last couple of weeks, Conservatives have begun to speak out for the citizens who have been suffering in silence for the last two years, all those who have been severely harmed by many of the public health measures that were put in place to keep them safe, as we repeatedly heard from the Prime Minister and the governing party of this country. These measures were put in place first and foremost to keep Canadians safe, but we are finding out, as the outpouring continues to flood our inboxes and our offices, that there have also been significant consequences because of the measures put in place. Many of us have been outlining these for a very long time, particularly in the last couple of weeks.

Last week, I drew attention to a number of the very real consequences of public health measures that were designed to keep people safe but have severely harmed them. We have to remember that not all homes are safe. It is not always safe to be locked in our home. We may have a parent who is not stable or a spouse who is not stable. Some people are coping with isolation, drug dependency and alcohol abuse, and we have seen drug overdoses and suicides. The impact of employment loss is significant and has long-term damages. The impact of having children in and out of school will have long-term damages.

We are hearing this repeatedly. That is why Conservatives have brought forward this opposition day motion, which is one of the democratic tools we have, to call on the federal Liberal government to bring forward a concrete plan for hope, to give Canadians hope that they know what they are doing and that they have a plan. It seems like the Liberals do not know what they are doing. They are losing the plot. We are seeing that escalate every day across this country on television and it is incredibly serious. I hope the Liberal government is taking this seriously. i hope that they are meeting behind the scenes to discuss how we can move forward and find a peaceful resolution to this, a hopeful path forward for all Canadians.

On Monday night we had an emergency debate initiated by the NDP and I gave a speech. I have to say, the outpouring from across the country has been astounding. My office has not been able to keep up with the calls and messages from every corner of this country. What is interesting is that these are from people from every political stripe, and they are the first to say that they did not vote for me, but what I said resonated with them. That is significant. That rarely happens. People are saying they are double vaccinated or triple vaccinated and that they have supported all the measures up until now, but now they are suffering and we need change. We need a path forward.

Following our important debate on Monday night, the very next morning a Liberal MP, and this is fairly rare, called a press conference. This is more unprecedented than people realize. A Liberal MP from Quebec City reiterated the point that Conservatives have been making for a long time, that the governing party is using the politics of COVID to divide Canadians. We are finding out that, during the last election, there was an effort to use politics to divide Canadians on COVID policies, which I find extremely shameful. When I was door knocking, I saw the impacts of that concentrated division, that calculated decision to divide Canadians on COVID has harmed people.

The very next day, another Liberal MP from Quebec said that he agreed with that Liberal MP, and that more in the Liberal caucus agree as well. It is not just Conservatives. We are also hearing the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens saying that the citizens they represent are harmed by this, and that they want a plan for a path forward.

What I want to say to the people outside who are demonstrating is that we hear them, but we also need them to be peaceful and lawful. The temperature in this country is rising to an alarming degree. We are seeing illegal blockades. As a Conservative, I support legal, lawful, peaceful protests, not illegal blockades. That is a very important distinction to make, and I empower all those who are peacefully protesting to stay vigilant in their peaceful, lawful actions, but those who are illegally blockading are harming the economy and their communities. They need to go home.

We hear them, and we are fighting for them. Earlier today, our brave and courageous leader of her Majesty's loyal opposition said that we are not going to stop fighting for them until all public health restrictions are finished. We will not stop until we can move forward peacefully and safely, and we have a permanent end to what has been dividing Canadians for too long.

The world is watching us, including the American news and news in the U.K. I have heard from the B.B.C. They are watching us.

Monday night, our Prime Minister had the opportunity to come forward and address the nation with a plan. What did he do instead? He doubled down. He doubled down on his decisive rhetoric, on what he has been using for six months to divide Canadians. He turned Canadians against each other. He went to this base level of fear and used that against Canadians to divide our country.

The world is watching. We have an obligation, as elected officials, to stand up for the marginalized and stand up for those who have been harmed by this. When I was walking to West Block today, I saw a woman pushing a baby carriage engaged in the peaceful aspect of what we are seeing across the country, the lawful aspect. She stopped me and asked if I was the one speaking on Monday. She had tears in her eyes, and she thanked me for standing up for her.

I was just speaking up for people and I have received thousands of comments. People were saying they were in tears, that they could not even get through my speech and thanking me. This is unprecedented. All parties have to pay attention to this. These are Canadians of all political stripes, all demographics, all religions, and all economic backgrounds. Instead, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister doubled down on the division.

This division is real, and we can see it in the polls. A poll that came out last week is showing that over 50% of Canadians want an end to all restrictions and they want a plan. That is new. It was not like that a couple months ago. Around the same time, a poll came out that said 27% of Canadians want those who are unvaccinated against COVID put in jail. That is 27% of Canadians wanting unvaccinated people to be put in jail. How far are we going to push this? How far is the Liberal government going to push this?

Canadians are turning against each other and the Prime Minister is just doubling down, when he should be a leader and come forward with a plan for a peaceful resolution, to give Canadians hope and so all these people can go home. That is what they want. They just want a plan to move forward. That is what our opposition day motion is calling on the government for. It is more than reasonable. We are giving weeks of time to call the best experts in the country, put them around a table and talk about solutions.

I have said this before. We are seeing so many other highly advanced countries from around the world opening up. They have all the tools. They have done all the work, and they are listening to their citizens. The Prime Minister can pick up the phone. He is the most powerful man in the country. It is in his control to do this, and to me, it is shameful that he is not. He is not moving forward, he is not showing unity.

I have talked about building a bridge. Now it is time for him to step forward and build a bridge. He can call a press conference today and end this all. I think all Canadians, regardless if they agree with what we are saying or not, want to see a peaceful resolution to this. We have journalists talking about bringing in the army and all the Prime Minister has to do is call a press conference and say that we pushed this too far. We are bringing forward a plan to move forward like other countries have.

That is what Conservatives are asking for. That is what Canadians, in the millions, are asking for. This is not some fringe, unacceptable, un-Canadian, racist, misogynistic thing, or any other names he has been calling people. That is not what I am seeing. I am seeing women with baby carriages on the streets of Ottawa thanking me for standing up for them. Why can he not stand up for her?

I am calling on Liberal MPs, and I know there are more of them, to stand up, do what is right and have courage. It is scary to talk about this. I was terrified the first time I walked up to the House past the protesters knowing I was actually going to talk about this for the first time in two years. Politicians have all been intimidated. Every time we open our mouths about this, we are getting intimidated with vitriol, but we have to have courage.

I ask the Prime Minister to have courage and have a heart. He can bring forward a plan and he can end this. He is the most powerful man in the country. He can do this alone. He can unite us for the first time in two years. I ask all members of Parliament to have courage, feel the fear and do it anyway.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

We agree on two points. Yes, people are fed up and we need a plan. However, the motion moved by the Conservatives today is a straightjacket. There is no nuance and the conclusion has been written in advance. The motion calls for all restrictions to be lifted, no matter the circumstances or context, with no accounting for science or public health recommendations.

Does the member not think that this motion is exactly what the people outside want? We are talking about the same people who are blockading city streets, who threatened to overthrow an elected government and who are funded by Donald Trump supporters.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to read the motion. We have actually quoted public health experts in Canada. As our leader has pointed out, Dr. Tam, Dr. Hinshaw, Dr. Moore and many of the top public health doctors in this country have said that it is time to re-evaluate these harsh measures, the lockdowns and mandates. It is time now.

Everything is about timing. Politics is about timing. There is a groundswell happening in this country, and people are looking to members of Parliament to be leaders and bring forward a plan. So many doctors on mainstream television are telling us that we need to learn to live with this. It is time for a path forward, a peaceful resolution to this.

As I said in my remarks, I do not support the illegal blockade. They need to come to an end. For the peaceful, law-abiding citizens out there who are expressing their peaceful right to protest, we hear them and we are not going to stop standing up for them until we see an end to these harmful mandates.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for her speech.

The Bloc Québécois has said that it will support the Conservatives' motion, not because of the concerns and rhetoric invoked on both sides of the House, from both the official opposition and the government, but because it makes sense for the Canadian government to come up with a plan to gradually lift the lockdown measures.

It is unfortunate that the government is so preoccupied that it cannot come up with a plan or even plan to come up with a plan. This is what is happening everywhere. The science is allowing for some predictability, and we can start this process.

However, I am concerned about the Conservatives' call for all public health measures to be lifted. I think measures should be lifted gradually and in accordance with the science. This issue must not be polarized. That certainly would not get the protesters to leave.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I served on committee with the hon. member, and I appreciate that Bloc members are supporting our motion. I understand that they do not think it is perfect, but they understand the value in having a path forward, a peaceful resolution out of this and a plan for Canadians who are at the end of their rope. That is what we want to see. That is what we are asking for.

Our motion is more than reasonable. The date to bring forward a plan is February 28, which is weeks away. We would love to see a plan today. We would have loved to have seen a plan months ago. Conservatives have been asking for a plan for over a year. Our motion gives this government so much time. We have given it an off-ramp to save face, move forward and present a plan. The Liberals have weeks. They could pick up the phone and call every expert in the world to develop a plan, yet they are digging their heels in. I do not understand it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could reflect on whether or not she feels there is any sort of hypocrisy within the Conservative Party when its members were actually out promoting and encouraging the convoy.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy I am seeing is a Prime Minister who yesterday said, “Canada has never been as strong and together as we are now.”

Does the Prime Minister not own a television? Does he not drive by what is going on in our nation's capital? That is hypocrisy. A man who, for years, said that diversity is our strength and who has now won votes off dividing Canadians, on their health choices of all things. That is hypocrisy, and Conservatives are going to continue to stand up for Canadians who have been marginalized by this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start off somewhat differently by referring to an email I received just moments ago. It is from Ambassador Romualdez, the Philippine ambassador to Canada. There is a promotion about Filipinos in the field of science. It is about the health care sector and, as the member referred to diversity, how people of Canadian Filipino heritage have contributed to the health care field during this pandemic and beyond. I want to express my appreciation. I thank that community as a whole and want to recognize that I received the letter. It is an excellent message that I hope to promote.

Having said that, let me get to the debate at hand. It has been interesting thus far today listening to the comments. The leader of the official opposition started off by talking about the blockades and appealing to those participating in them by saying it is time to end them. I could spend a full 20 minutes talking about the protesters and the blockades. I have been a parliamentarian for many years and witnessed many forms of protest. What we are seeing today is not a protest that I believe Canadians support. There are many aspects of this protest, whether it is the preaching of hatred or the racism, and the extreme right that offend not only me, but Canadians as a whole.

The blockade here is impacting Ottawa, and now we are seeing, ironically, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, truckers preventing truckers from doing what is so critically important to the Canadian economy, which is keeping the supply chain going. The Liberals understand what is important, and as a party, unlike the official opposition, we have consistently had a plan from the very beginning. We have said from the very beginning that we need to listen to science and health experts and act accordingly. The Conservative Party, depending on the day or the week, has been all over the bloody map. Sometimes the Conservatives say they support science, and some days I do not know where they get their numbers from. I will expand on that as I get further into my comments.

I have been in Ottawa in the last few weeks, but I stay in touch with what is happening in Winnipeg North and my home province. I would like to read from the Winnipeg Free Press. Members and anyone following the debate can get a copy of it online. This is what the Winnipeg Free Press said: “The Manitoba government will stick to following COVID-19 indicators, not protesters’ demands or neighbouring premiers, in deciding when to lift vaccination and mask requirements.”

Dr. Jazz Atwal is a health care expert who is there to ensure that Manitoba is healthy. I say that so hopefully the Conservative Party can appreciate the value of our health care experts. What is he saying? He is the deputy chief provincial public health officer. The Winnipeg Free Press article goes on:

Dr. Jazz Atwal...said Wednesday restrictions will only be lifted in Manitoba when it is safe to do so.

“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 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—

I really want to emphasize this:

—thanks to “the vast majority” of Manitobans who “have done what they’ve been asked to do.”

I am going to pause there for a moment.

When I talk about leadership and we look for leadership from within the House of Commons, there is only one party that has consistently failed to step up to the plate. We have seen leadership from the Bloc, the NDP, the Green Party and obviously from the Prime Minister. We have seen it from even previous Progressive Conservative members of Parliament.

I will move to another quote, which deals with the issue of vaccination. We should be applauding not a divisive country but one that has come together, where 90% of people are fully vaccinated. That is not division. If only the Conservative Party could be 90% together. It think that would be a dream for any Conservative leader. At the end of the day, this is about vaccination.

What does a former Progressive Conservative, Brian Mulroney, have to say? I say Progressive Conservative because I do not see Progressive Conservatives on the other side. What I see are Reformers. I see the far right wing in Canada when I look across the way. This is what Brian Mulroney said during CTV's Question Period when referencing the former leader of the Conservative Party: The former leader “should go farther and show any unvaccinated MPs the door, removing them from his caucus. ‘That's leadership.’” This is a direct quote from former prime minister Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative. He goes on to say, “Who am I to argue with tens of thousands of brilliant scientists and doctors who urge the population desperately to get vaccinated?”

The point is that members of the Conservative Party do a disservice to Canadians when some days they feel one way and on other days they feel a completely different way. They do not base their policy decisions on sound science and public health recommendations. They seem to want to cater to those individuals who, for whatever reasons, want to take them off the course of the public good in general here in Canada.

Health care professionals recognize the true value of vaccinations. I would like to think that the Prime Minister, the caucus and other members of the House have gone out of their way to encourage people to get vaccinated. I challenge members across the way to tell me another country, in particular in the G8 or the G20, that has had as much success as Canada in getting a population vaccinated to the degree we have in Canada. It is not the Government of Canada that has done it. It is the people of Canada who have responded to what health care experts are saying and what science is telling us, yet the official opposition wants to go in the wind.

A week ago, members of the Conservative Party were going out on the protest lines, taking pictures and snapshots and encouraging protests. They had no problem with the blockades. At least that is what the wild Reformers from the Conservative Party who sit across from me today have said. They had no problem with them. In fact, they were putting this on Twitter. They were doing all sorts of activities on social media to continue encouraging them.

Now, as some members in the chamber have talked about, we see the blockades have grown. Now we see border issues in Canada that are affecting trade, like at the Ambassador Bridge. About $400 million a day of economic trade occurs between Canada and the U.S. at that one bridge alone. That is hurting Canadians. It is hurting our jobs. It is hurting our coming back from this pandemic.

That is why I suggest there is some reason to be optimistic: We finally have the interim Conservative leader saying it is time for the blockades to go. I am glad she says it here on the floor, but she should have the courage to go outside and tell the people she told to stay that it is time for them to go. Why will she not do that? It was the Conservative Reformers who were out there snapping pictures and talking up the convoy and the blockades—