Debates of Feb. 10th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Federal COVID-19 Mandates and Restrictions

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about Canadians pulling together and getting vaccinated, and I agree. She is right that Canadians did pull together and get vaccinated, but now I am hearing from people who want to get their businesses back up and running at full capacity and see people go back to work. I am hearing from parents who want their children to be able to live a normal life again. I am hearing from people who are struggling with their mental health. I know the member has heard those same things. That is the frustration and anger she said she has heard from people. They just want a plan from the government to end lockdowns, restrictions and related things that are a result of the government's failure.

I want to know if she is listening to her constituents, if she is listening to Canadians and if she will support this motion.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we agree on a few things and that we are also listening to Canadians.

We are hearing a variety of views. I agree that we have to have a plan. As I said, we have had a plan and we are following it. To tell Canadians that we have an exact timetable or plan for how to end all restrictions would require that we end COVID, and I do not know how to do that. I hope the member does. If we did that as the Government of Canada, we would be very popular worldwide.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a government that has been, I think it is fair to say, rudderless over the course of the last few weeks and months. It ended CERB abruptly, cutting 800,000 Canadians off from any supports, any method of putting food on the table or keeping a roof over their heads. There has been profound income and wealth inequality that we have seen exacerbated by COVID, and the government has done nothing about it.

I wonder if the member can comment on what has been a rudderless reaction as well to this crisis. There are now three border crossings shut down, the Ottawa airport was shut down this morning and there is a siege of Parliament Hill, yet the government and the Prime Minister seem to be missing in action and do not seem to know how to respond. Could the member comment on why the government has been so rudderless through this crisis?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a rudderless government. I have seen a government that has a plan and has stuck to it. We have had a plan that has given us some of the best results in the world, and we are continuing to follow that plan. We have provided supports for Canadians, more than have been provided in many other countries, and we have better economic results. In fact, we have had fewer small business bankruptcies during the pandemic than we did the previous year.

Canadians have been supported. We had the foresight to pass legislation in the fall to allow for supports to be put in place if provinces enacted lockdowns because of another surge in COVID. Those have been in place.

I do not agree that we have been rudderless at all. In fact, I think we have been very calm and have stayed the course in continuing with a plan that has given us very good results that we should all be proud of.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. She obviously cannot ignore what is going on outside or what happened in question period. This is about managing a public health crisis, but it is also about public health measures. There are people protesting right now.

Every party has made it clear that this calls for a party leaders' summit to enable meaningful dialogue, even if it is behind closed doors. There has to be a meeting with the Prime Minister and the leaders of the first, second and third opposition parties.

What does my colleague think about such a meeting?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not ignored and one cannot ignore what is going on outside, nor has our government. However, earlier a member asked for unanimous consent for a motion to end the blockades. The hon. members of the opposition did not agree. They said nay to that motion.

We have been reaching out. We have been trying. We have been asking for an end to the blockade. We have been offering support to the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario to end this blockade and others. We have been consistent in saying that these illegal activities should be ended. That has not been the case on the other side of the aisle.

I would ask all members to support an end to this blockade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise and speak to a very important and critical debate in this place. I would suggest it is somewhat historical in the sense that we are trying to move forward from an incredibly tough couple of years for Canadians. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

I have been a member of Parliament now for six years. In my 57 years, I do not think I have ever seen the country as divided as it is today. It is divided along regional lines, divided along race lines and divided along faith lines, and we are now pitting neighbours against neighbours on the basis of their health status. That is not the way the country should be governed.

Over the last six years, we have seen the divisive nature of a Prime Minister who does everything he can not to unite Canadians but to divide Canadians. We have seen it in some of the language that has been used. This is why Conservatives have really tried to take a solution-oriented approach to this crisis to work with the government.

Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter to the Prime Minister that asked him to convene a meeting of the opposition parties with him to try to come up with a solution and try to work through this problem. Even today, the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois brought it up several times in question period and was trying to get the government and the Prime Minister to meet with opposition parties.

Emergency services are stretched out. They are stressed. They are doing everything they can to deal with not just the manifestation of that frustration and that anger here in Ottawa but what is also now cascading across the provinces. We are seeing blockades at critical entry points, not just for our infrastructure but also for our supply chain. There are blockades at the Ambassador Bridge; in Emerson, Manitoba; and in Coutts, Alberta.

I want to say that I appreciate that level of frustration. As the member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil,over the last two years I have certainly heard from businesses and people whose lives and livelihoods have been affected. I have heard about businesses that have been lost, about mental health issues among young people and about the mental health crisis that exists. People are tired and frustrated and angry. They are lashing out. They are protesting. They are calling and emailing members of Parliament. It is our job to listen to every single one of those voices. That is our job, regardless of whether we agree with them, regardless of whether we form the same ideology. It is our job to listen.

In listening to all of this frustration that is being manifested through these protests, we need to come together as leaders in Parliament to find a solution, and we need to work together to do that. I will say that this morning the Leader of the Opposition called out and made a plea for the protests to end.

We have heard what people are going through. We know what they want. It is up to us as leaders in this country to work to find those types of solutions so that people can go home, so that they know that their political leaders are working together. That is what this motion is all about; it is about creating a plan, a strategy, an exit strategy so that we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

At this point, 90% of Canadians are vaccinated. I understand there are still some issues and some challenges; however, people are tired and weary of the restrictions and lockdowns and the types of things we are seeing being implemented and continued by the government, whether it is border testing or many of the other measures it has implemented.

We need an exit strategy. We need to make sure that our economy is functioning on all cylinders. We cannot just go to restrictions and lockdowns by default. We have to use every tool in our tool box that we can. Vaccinations are one, and rapid tests and masking.

I think it is up to Canadians now to make their health choices, to determine how we are going to get back to some sense of normalcy, and the government can facilitate that. The government can do that by ending the lockdowns, ending the restrictions and ending the mandates.

I have been dealing with a situation at the ethics committee where we are seeing what seems to be a pattern of massive overreach from a privacy standpoint on Canadians in the collection of data without the consent of Canadians. If we start connecting the dots, as I said yesterday in question period, it is becoming increasingly concerning to Canadians what is happening with respect to their privacy rights.

We have to take down the temperature. We have to stop the inflammatory language, the incendiary language that oftentimes is coming from the government. In fact, we had one of their MPs earlier this week talk about a concerted effort to stigmatize Canadians and to create this division. This is not a time for us to be divided. This is a time for us to be united in our cause, and that cause is to ensure that these lockdowns and these mandates end so that Canadians can get back to some sense of normalcy in their lives, so that businesses can function and so that lives and livelihoods are not lost. That is what we are talking about today. We need a plan and we need that exit strategy.

I know the Prime Minister today, even through question period and all day yesterday, was talking about science and evidence-based decision-making. Even the chief public health officer of Canada is saying that we have to get back to some sense of normalcy. In fact, there are public health officers right across the country, premiers, who are announcing no more lockdowns, no more mandates and no more vaccine passports. They understand that we have to get back to some sense of normalcy, if not for the economy of this country then for the mental health of our nation because people are suffering.

Sadly, as I sit here and I listen to the Prime Minister speak day in and day out about science and evidence-based decision-making, the reality is that the only science the Prime Minister understands is political science. That is the only science that he understands, political science and how to keep his job, instead of worrying about the people that he represents.

He does not just represent people who agree with his ideology. He is the Prime Minister of the entire country. He is not supposed to just represent the people who agree or disagree with him. He is the Prime Minister of all Canadians. That, I think, is what is seriously lacking here, and I do not know why. This is despite the calls from the opposition parties, all of the opposition parties. Even the leader of the NDP today talked about convening a meeting so that we can work together to find a solution to this crisis, which is not just seizing our country but starting to paralyze our country.

However, there are still more political games. A unanimous consent motion today by the Liberals just poured more gas on the fire. I am sick of it and Canadians are sick of it. They want their leadership and they want leaders in this country to be working together.

Today's motion to direct the government to create this exit strategy, to create this exit plan, is one of prudence. It is one that is necessary and it is one that Canadians are desperately hoping for. I know the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil are fed up. They are tired. They are angry. They want to get back to some sense of normalcy. They want to be able to travel again. They do not want to have to pay $600 for a family of four for a PCR test.

We need to get back to some sense of normalcy. I pray and I hope that the government is listening to what we are proposing, because it is done with sincerity and it is done on behalf of Canadians, the same Canadians who sent us here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House leader. Having said that, the leader of the official opposition stood up and said that the Conservatives want to see an end to the illegal blockades, which is a great thing to say, but actions do speak louder than words. During the previous couple of weeks, the Conservatives have been supporting it in many different ways, in particular through social media and many of the actions that were taken by Conservative members of Parliament. That is what has led, in good part, to the blockades that we are now seeing at our borders, which is causing horrific economic damage, job losses and so forth.

Would my friend not agree that, if the Conservatives want to put some water on the fire, a part of it means for many of those same Conservative MPs to start putting it on their social media and start talking to some of their friends who are out there, saying it is time to end this illegal convoy, to go home and to let Ottawa get back to normalcy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition was quite clear in her statement this morning. In fact, I was quite clear in my statement just now that these protests do have to end. Canadians have been heard, and it is up to the government. We are not the government. We are members of the opposition. The Liberals are the government, and they have all of the tools and all of the levers of power to choose from instead of, as I said earlier, inciting with incendiary and inflammatory language and trying to pour more gas on the fire. If the Liberals wanted to really work together, leveraging all the tools of power that they have, they could work to end this.

As I said, Canadians are frustrated. They want the mandates to end. They want to get back to some sense of normalcy. They want life to resume, and they do not want their kids to suffer anymore from the mental health crisis that they are already suffering from. The Liberals have the power. They have the tools and they can work collaboratively to try to find a resolution to this problem, but the protesters do have to go home and we have to get back to some sense of normalcy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have read the motion. I gave a speech on it, so I should hope I read it.

This morning, I heard the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie accuse the Conservatives of wanting to lift all restrictions from one day to the next, not gradually.

I would like my colleague to clarify the motion and the fact that a plan does not necessarily mean an immediate reopening without warning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the crafting of the motion. The initial crafting of the motion was somewhat prescriptive in the sense that maybe it was a bridge too far to start, and this is why we brought it back a little bit to talk about the government developing a plan by February 28.

We are not naive. We do not think that things are just going to all of a sudden stop. There has to be some period of transition, but we need an exit plan and we need an exit strategy. That is what this motion is calling for on the part of the government, to use those levers of power in order to ensure that we develop this type of plan so that Canadians can get back to some sense of normalcy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, early in the pandemic, epidemiologists observed that this virus knows no borders. They warned that if we did not have a global vaccination program, then what they described as “immune escape variants” would undoubtedly emerge and make their way even to places like Canada that have very high vaccination rates. One of the responses to this is to allow countries around the world to have access to the technology and vaccine intellectual property that the public paid for, so that they could actually produce vaccines and vaccinate their citizens faster. This not only would be fair to them but would help Canadians stay safe.

I wonder if my hon. colleague agrees with the NDP that Canada should support the TRIPS waiver at the WTO so that we can expand global vaccine production and help keep Canadians safe. Up to now, I have not heard the member's leader or Conservatives actually support that very rational measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it that there has to be a vaccine plan globally, because there are risks associated with other types of variants that are going to develop in these nations. It is up to the global community to come together and make sure that, for those countries that are vulnerable and susceptible to these types of variants manifesting themselves, we come together and really work as a global community to make sure that those countries are safe. By extension, Canada becomes safe as well.

We do need domestic capacity as well and I really want to emphasize the need for biopharma. Pharmaceutical technology in this country needs to be developed, not just talked about but actually done.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conservative motion before the House this afternoon calling on the government to finally come up with a plan to end the federally related COVID restrictions and mandates, including the government's punitive and discriminatory vaccine mandates.

When it comes to the mandates, the Prime Minister says he is merely following science. If he were really following science, he would listen to public health officials across Canada, including Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, who has stated that all existing public health measures need to be re-evaluated, including vaccine mandates. Make no mistake about it, the Prime Minister is not interested in science. He is interested in politicizing the pandemic, dividing Canadian society and demonizing Canadians for making a personal health choice.

Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has used incendiary and hateful rhetoric against his fellow Canadians for merely making a personal health choice. He even went so far as to say, “Do we tolerate these people?” Those are the words of the Prime Minister against his fellow Canadians. Needless to say, history will not judge the Prime Minister kindly for his recent hateful words or his recent actions.

The Prime Minister's mandates have not done much to keep Canadians safe, but they have destroyed lives, they have destroyed livelihoods, they have eroded personal freedoms, they have pitted one Canadian against another and they have infringed upon the rights and freedoms of Canadians including privacy rights. It is on the issue of privacy rights that I wish to spend the balance of my time.

In a free and democratic society, governments respect the privacy of their citizens. To underscore the importance of privacy rights, earlier this week when the Privacy Commissioner appeared before the ethics committee, he stated that privacy is a human right. In May 2021, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, along with all provincial and territorial privacy commissioners, issued a joint statement on what they contemplated would be vaccine mandates imposed by governments.

In the joint statement, the privacy commissioners warned that vaccine mandates would encroach upon civil liberties, that there were significant privacy risks involved and that the government should not proceed without careful consideration. Having regard for those significant privacy risks, the joint statement stressed the importance of the government doing its due diligence in seeing that, before any such mandate is introduced, all applicable privacy laws would be complied with and privacy best practices would be adopted.

I should further note that it is a federal government policy, pursuant to a directive, that when there is a program or activity of government that involves the use of personal information that directly impacts an individual, a privacy impact assessment be undertaken in respect of that federal program or activity and that such a privacy impact assessment be conducted before the program or activity is implemented. The purpose of such an assessment is clear: to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act and to address other privacy-related issues.

In light of the warnings from all privacy commissioners across Canada, one would have thought the government would have reached out and worked with the Privacy Commissioner at the earliest opportunity before vaccine mandates were implemented. In light of the federal directive respecting privacy impact assessments, one would have thought the government would have worked on and completed such assessments before the implementation of mandates.

To learn more about what the government has done or has failed to do with respect to protecting the privacy rights of Canadians, my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa, and I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner. The letter of response that we received is deeply concerning. It is clear in the Privacy Commissioner's response that the government did not consult the Office of the Privacy Commissioner at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, in many cases, the Privacy Commissioner was contacted at the eleventh hour. For example, with respect to the vaccine mandate that affects the public service, the Privacy Commissioner was given four hours to review it. That is unacceptable, it is unreasonable and it demonstrates bad faith on the part of the government when it comes to protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

What about the privacy impact assessments? The Privacy Commissioner has confirmed to my office that no such assessments have been produced. I would remind the government that such assessments were to be produced prior to the implementation of the mandates. Here we are, four months later, and there are no assessments. What makes that even worse is the clear warnings from all privacy commissioners across Canada about the significant privacy risks involved.

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. It is part of a disturbing trend on the part of the government to disregard the privacy rights of Canadians. We learned recently, for example, that PHAC failed to work with the Privacy Commissioner in respect of the collection of mobile data from millions of Canadians without their consent. There is the case of Statistics Canada, which was caught with unjustifiable plans to collect the data of Canadians in respect of their financial transactions without their consent. One would expect to see this happening in Communist China but not in Canada, yet it is happening in Canada under the government's watch.

The continued systematic disregard for the privacy rights of Canadians by the government is leading us on a dangerous path. It is time to reverse course. It is time to end this massive overreach and restore freedom. It is time to end the mandates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this very interesting. We just finished voting on Bill C-8. Bill C-8 would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the purchase of rapid tests. That is absolutely critical. The member can check with any province, territory and indigenous community to see that rapid testing is absolutely critical, yet the Conservative Party voted against those funds going there.

The member talks about the issue of privacy. He has no confidence and faith in the Public Health Agency of Canada, which has a very positive record on privacy and is recognized around the world. He wants to deny this indefinitely so a committee can study it indefinitely, as opposed to getting information. Does he not see the flaw in the Conservative strategy?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the parliamentary secretary, and I say respectfully that I find it a little rich for the hon. member to be talking about rapid testing. For the past two years, the government has repeatedly dragged its feet when it comes to rapid testing. We on this side of the House, from day one, were encouraging the government to act with respect to rapid testing. Now, in year three, the government is finally getting serious. I say it is too little, too late.

The member talks about Bill C-8. What was completely absent from Bill C-8 was funding to increase hospital capacity in this country. When it comes to ICU capacity, for example, in which we had significant overcapacity problems part of the time during COVID, we have one-third of the ICUs the United States has and we rank last in the OECD, other than Mexico. Despite this, after blowing through another $70 billion of new spending, the government could not come up with new spending to increase hospital capacity so we could avoid the issues we have faced over the past two years. It is really a lack of leadership on the part of the current government.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see two important aspects to the Conservatives’ proposal for lifting the health measures: the restrictions, which many people are protesting against, judging by the street full of people in front of Parliament, and the medical aspect. I know a little bit about the Conservatives’ position on the medical aspect. I am thinking mainly of vaccination.

There is something else that I cannot figure out. The federal government has not been able to deliver enough supplies. Therefore, the Quebec government had to buy its own antigen tests. The thing is that a few dozen kilometres from the House, in Hawkesbury, there is a company called Solaris that has a million of these tests in stock. That is what I do not understand. The inventory is there, the federal government is not able to access it, and the provinces are now being forced to pay for these supplies themselves. At least, that is what Quebec has done.

What is my colleague’s position on this attitude or lack of leadership by the federal government?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's final sentence encapsulates the issue: a lack of leadership on the part of the federal government. We have seen this throughout COVID with the lack of PPE, lack of capacity in our hospitals and lack of rapid testing. The list goes on. What we need to do now, in year three of this pandemic, is realize that we will have to live with COVID. We will have to develop strategies to ensure we can live with COVID and live in a free and open society once again.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alberta for his very typical thoughtful and comprehensive comments.

Certainly, the people we represent are no strangers to being attacked and dismissed by the government, as they have been for at least the six years we have been here. After the past two years of government restrictions and rules, I think it is clear that Canadians right across the country, including small business owners, kids, families and entrepreneurs, are suffering. They are losing their livelihoods and relationships. There are increased mental health struggles and there is substance abuse. People are going to extraordinary lengths to fight for values like freedom, unity and the ability to work and make decisions about their lives, family and privacy. Of course, 90% of Canadians are vaccinated, and the provinces and other countries are showing a clear path forward.

Why does the member think the government and the Prime Minister choose the path of division, insults and degradation, instead of meeting with leaders to come up with a plan forward to end restrictions, end mandates and end lockdowns, which will end the protests?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to give the short answer, it is because the Prime Minister sees short-term political gain in dividing Canadian society. The member noted that 90% of Canadians have been vaccinated. That is a good thing. However, if 90% of Canadians have been vaccinated, what is the government seeking to achieve with the continuation of these vaccine mandates, other than to punish Canadians and divide Canadian society?

It is time to get on with it. It is time to let Canadians take back control of their lives and, as a starting point, it is time to lift the mandates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition day motion. I have had the opportunity to listen for the majority of the day to the debate and I want to address a few points. A couple nights ago when we had an emergency debate, I started off with some facts. I am going to do the same thing today because I think it is very important.

The fact is that almost 90% of adults over the age of 18 in Canada have been fully vaccinated, and 82.7% of people who are five years old and older have been fully vaccinated. Remember, people five to 11 only recently became eligible. Also, just under 50% of adults 18 and over have already received a booster. In my province of Ontario, it is similar. Just under 84% of people who are five years old and older are fully vaccinated and 45% have received a booster. I am even more proud to say that in the health region of Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington, 88% of those who are five years old and older are fully vaccinated and 67% have already received their booster. I note that my riding shares a health unit with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, and I think we can be extremely proud of this locally.

I want to take a few minutes to go back to the introductory comments we heard this morning from the leader of the official opposition that related to the blockades, the protesters and everything that is going on outside. I found it quite interesting that she raised this in a debate that really does not address that. This debate is about developing a road map, which I will get to shortly. For some reason, she spent a great deal of time on a personal appeal to the protesters, asking them to leave, and I was delighted to hear that. It is great to hear the leader of the official opposition finally get to the point of asking those who are participating in these blockades to leave.

However, I cannot help but wonder why the leader of the official opposition is suddenly making a dramatic change in her approach. A week ago, in an email that was leaked by who I can only assume is a very conscientious and concerned Conservative staffer, the leader of the opposition asked the former leader of the opposition not to do anything about the blockaders and to make it the Prime Minister's problem. That does not sound like somebody who is trying to bring unity to the House and bring everybody together.

Then, even more recently, we learned from a Politico article that she sat down with truckers and told them not to stop what they were doing. Sorry, I should say “protesters”, because I think the vast majority out there go beyond representing the truckers. She sat down with protesters and told them what they were doing was working and to keep it up. That does not sound to me like somebody who would then, within a week, stand in the House and introduce a motion that basically calls on everybody to get together and work on a solution. I am sorry, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot be the saviours of the “freedom convoy” and the saviours of the people in downtown Ottawa all together in one when we are flip-flopping back and forth all the time.

I asked myself why the Conservatives have suddenly taken a new approach and a new direction, and I think it is quite obvious to those who are following this pretty closely: Public opinion is changing and it is changing pretty darn quickly. I even noticed it in social media feeds. More and more people are saying that what is going on in Ottawa is not right. This is not about truckers. This is something much bigger than that. By the way, where is the money coming from to fund this? There are all sorts of stories out there about GoFundMe and these other organizations that are drumming up money from the United States. It is being reported in other areas of the world.

The Conservatives are starting to get nervous now. They are sitting there asking what they are getting themselves into and saying it seemed really good a week ago and maybe it is time they changed course. In my humble opinion, although some of my friends across the way might suggest it is not all that humble, the leader of the official opposition can see the writing on the wall now. She has realized that it is time to change course on this because they are getting in way too deep. That is what is happening. They realize they have gone too far, and that is why they are asking the protesters to leave.

I want to read a quote for members. A Conservative member of Parliament said:

These blockaders are taking away the freedoms of other people to move their goods and themselves.

That is a quote from a Conservative member, talking about a blockade. It was not this blockade. It was the member for Carleton. He was talking about a blockade on February 13, 2020, blocking a rail line in the Tyendinaga area. Is that not interesting?

The so-called individual who will soon be coronated to become the leader of the official opposition has these incredible flip-flops. He is all concerned about the moving of goods down a rail line when it is indigenous protesters, but when it comes to what is going on in the streets of Ottawa, he is absolutely silent.

The member received three questions, a couple of days ago, from three of us back to back. I, the Bloc and the NDP all asked him if he supported what is going on out there, and he totally skated through it. He did not want to address it, because he knows he can raise money and get votes from the people who are outside. I think he also knows he cannot get them from indigenous protesters in Tyendinaga. That is the irony, the hypocrisy, of the member for Carleton and the Conservative Party writ large, because they do this all the time.

Conservatives flip-flop, and we are seeing these flip-flops. Let us look back at the past two years. They would say, “Close the borders. We need the borders closed immediately, right now. Why did we not do it three weeks ago?” Then, all of a sudden, they would say, “Why are the borders not open? We need the borders open. People needed to travel.” They flip-flopped back and forth on that issue at least three or four times in the past two years. Is that leadership? I highly doubt it.

What about the vaccines? The member for Calgary Nose Hill said that we would not have vaccines until 2030. She said that we were never going to get vaccines, and that vaccines would never be around. Then all of a sudden she asked where the vaccines were, why did we not have vaccines and why were there not vaccines everywhere. Is that leadership? No, but we hear it. It is another flip-flop.

What about rapid tests? Conservatives said, “We need rapid tests. Where are the rapid tests?” They used to say, “Rapid tests do not work. Nobody needs rapid tests.” They flip-flop. They literally go outside, stick their finger in the wind and ask, “What are we doing today? Which way is the wind blowing?” That is not leadership.

It is ironic. Not even an hour ago, there was a unanimous consent motion in the House, when the vast majority of members were paying very close attention to what was going on, that said, “The House condemns the intimidation of citizens and journalists, the incessant honking, the arson attempts, the shooting of fireworks in the downtown core of Ottawa, the flooding of emergency lines such as 911 and local police numbers by fake emergency calls, the blockade of essential road infrastructure and the overall siege situation currently being maintained.”

We sent this unanimous consent motion to the Conservatives ahead of time, which is the proper procedure when we do this. They knew what they were saying no to. One lone Conservative over there, obviously set up by the whip's desk, probably with their head down, said no and rejected the unanimous consent motion on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition.

This is the same person who says that we need to come in here and work together, that we need to be unanimous and that she wants the protest to end right now. It is clear that she does not want the protest to end for the same reasons the rest of the country does. She wants it to end because she realizes it is a political liability now. That is the conundrum the Conservatives have put themselves into, and they do it routinely.

This motion is calling for a road map. It is asking the government to set out a path and to put measurables in place to determine at what point certain things will happen.

[An hon. member]

That makes sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, they say it makes sense. Does that make sense?

Guess what. Ontario has done it, and keeps changing it. Three months ago, we did not know about the omicron virus. We had no idea. We are getting new things thrown into the equation all the time.

What the opposition members are asking for is that we develop a road map when there are so many variables. They want to be able to tie something down, when it is literally impossible to do. Ontario has been trying to do it unsuccessfully. It keeps having to change it, because it is impossible to do.

How will we do it? We will do it by listening to science. I will get to Dr. Tam's and Dr. Moore's points in a second. We will do it by science, and we will do it by listening to the experts who advise us at various points, rather than trying to do it based on the political wind that the Leader of the Conservative Party and her caucus, who are heckling me right now, insist on so much. We are going to do it by using the proper ways that we should allow for things like this to unroll, which is by listening to the medical experts.

We can talk about Dr. Tam and Dr. Moore, who, by the way, I have a huge amount of respect for. I was on the Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Public Health unit before Dr. Moore was even the Medical Officer of Health for Kingston. I have known the gentleman since 2006. We have had a number of conversations on this and many other health-related matters in my riding. I have the most incredible amount of respect for him.

He and Dr. Tam have said—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Open up.

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

Mr. Speaker, no, they did not say, “Open up.” That is what they are heckling me with from the other side.

This is my point. They are misrepresenting the comments that they have made. What they have been saying is that we need to establish, at some point, how we will move out of this. They need to do it, not politicians in this room.

Do members know how I know that to be the fact? Do members know how I know that the Conservatives know that to be the fact? It is because the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referenced Dr. Tam coming to the health committee and making this comment, which she also made in a press conference.

My question for my Conservative colleagues is, did they ask Dr. Tam if we should make the road map? Probably not. No, they did not. Do members know why? It was probably because they did not want to hear her answer. I would be willing to bet that Dr. Tam would have said it was probably best that we leave the decisions in the hands of the experts, rather than to politicians trying to create a road map. That is what this is about.

That is what debate after debate in the House is about. It is about Conservatives trying to politicize every issue. They are laughing and clapping right now. Guess what? I have one. A week and a half ago, there were Conservatives all over Wellington Street, taking pictures with protesters and posting them on Facebook. Why are they not doing it now? Why does one of the members laughing at me right now not go outside, take a picture with a protester, and be like, “I am so proud to support these people”? Why do they not do that? It is because they know the conundrum they have put themselves in.

I realize they are heckling me because the truth hurts. It is unfortunately the reality of the situation. If Conservatives want to prove me wrong, I encourage one of them, right now, who is sitting in here heckling me to go outside and do that.