Debates of Feb. 10th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Federal COVID-19 Mandates and Restrictions

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to serve with my hon. colleague on the health committee. I think that as a physician, he will be interested in this quote from Dr. Katherine Smart, the president of the Canadian Medical Association. She says:

The lack of equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines raises significant ethical concerns in addition to increasing the risk of new variants. Vaccines are critical to our exit from this pandemic. By protecting other countries, we’re protecting everyone, including Canadians.

For many months, experts have been issuing warnings that vaccine-resistant variants like omicron are likely to emerge from regions with low access to COVID-19 vaccines. The median vaccination rate in the 92 countries identified by COVAX, the vast majority in sub-Saharan Africa, is just 11%.

Given that this pandemic will not be over anywhere until it is over everywhere throughout the world, can the member explain why the Conservative Party refuses to support the TRIPS waiver at the WTO to expand production in developing countries?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the more important answer is to know why the Liberal government stole from the COVAX program. Why did it take vaccines that were already there and waiting for the developing nations that need them so dearly? Why did it take them from that program? Why have the Liberals only funded half of the doses that they said they were going to send to the COVAX program?

Again, it is due to failed leadership. That is why.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility of the Prime Minister is to unify this country, to bring it together for people from all parts and all corners: the French, the English, the indigenous, the non-indigenous, those from the east, those from the west, etc. The purpose of the Prime Minister, first and foremost, is to bring us together around a unified vision. This is what ensures our prosperity as a nation.

It is dumbfounding, then, that our Prime Minister would look to do the exact opposite. Why would he look to stoke the flames of division, fear and worry? Why would he look to pit friends against one another, neighbours against one another, family members against one another? Why would he look to even wedge his own caucus members against one another? We know this is true because there have been a few brave members from across the aisle who have come forward and have exposed the Prime Minister's strategy, which is to divide Canadians and to create wedge issues.

At the point of that are vaccines. Rather than using them as a tool, which is what they are meant to be, he has used them as a weapon. That is incredibly sad. The Prime Minister has used vaccines to pit one group against another, so instead of acting as Prime Minister, instead of being a statesman, he has been a gamesman. Instead of showing statesmanship, he is simply showing gamesmanship. It is divisive, it is exploitive, it is cold, it is cruel, it is calculated and it is wrong.

Canadians have sacrificed so much. Over and over again, they have been asked to reorient their lives, to adjust and to follow the ever-changing rules and regulations, and, to their credit, they have. Now they are watching as other countries around the world, such as the U.K., the Czech Republic, Israel, Switzerland, Ireland and Denmark are opening up. They are watching as Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as the United States, are opening up. They are saying, “Wait a minute. We followed the rules and we did what we were told to do. Why is the Prime Minister not making good on his promise? Where is the plan? Why is Canada not able to open up?”

We do not have to look any farther than outside those doors to see the impact that the Prime Minister is having with his abdication of leadership on this issue. This country is in chaos. Canadians are pleading for help. They have done their part and now they are asking that the Prime Minister do his. Is it any wonder, then, that these individuals do not trust the government, that they have big questions about whether follow-through will actually take place?

Out of one side of his face, the Prime Minister says one thing and then out of the other side he says another. Sometimes he contradicts himself within the same sentence. Canadians have lost trust, and with that lost trust, hope is also waning, but that is not their fault, as the Prime Minister would like to point out. No, that is the Prime Minister's responsibility. He is the one who broke their trust.

People are desperate. They are desperate for hope, desperate for leadership, desperate for a future. Their ask is not out of this world. They are just asking the Prime Minister to do what he promised he would.

Canadians are absolutely incredible. I love this country and I love representing the people of it. As Canadians, we persevere because that is who we are. We are incredibly adaptive. We are innovative. We are creative. We find solutions. We solve problems. We are tenacious. We are resilient. We are courageous. However, hope and confidence are waning because of the trauma, the pain—two years' worth—the isolation, the lockdowns and the ever-changing goal posts.

I have received thousands of emails and phone calls. I will share a few.

James contacted me. He is a university student and he wrote to me to say this:

Following this summer, much of learning has been disrupted, from cancelled classes, in-person social experiences and now completely remote learning. This has taken a serious toll on the way I view education. I used to look forward to going and participating in class and now I dread spending hours of time a day watching pre-recorded videos alone. I plead that you will consider the harmful effects that these mandates can have on all the people of Alberta and Canada.

There is a plea being made by the people of this country. Domestic violence is up. Opioid use is through the roof. Cancer is being undiagnosed because people cannot get in to see their doctor in time.

Maria wrote to me. She works with adolescents in mental health, and she wanted to make sure I understood that she has seen a drastic increase in young people with mental health issues. She said, “It is extreme.”

I had a desperate call from a mother just a little while ago. Her child is suffering from an eating disorder, and for a year and a half they waited to see an expert. They waited for help while their daughter wasted away.

There have been cancelled surgeries and treatments, and there has been isolation that has taken a significant toll on our elderly. I talked to a nurse who shared with me that the number of euthanasia requests has gone up, and the number one reason she is noticing is isolation and loneliness. No one should be put in a place where they are choosing to end their life because their government is dictating to them that they cannot see anyone, that they cannot be in contact with other human beings.

There are countless emails I have received with regard to loss of livelihood from postal workers and truckers. A health practitioner wrote to me and said this crisis has been exacerbated by “imposing lockdowns, separating families and support systems, enforcing vaccine passports, segregating people and making it socially acceptable to regard vaccine-free citizens as selfish, uneducated, irresponsible murderers. These are just a few of the things I have been called in the workplace. Recent comments by our Prime Minister simply fuel the hatred and the intolerance toward individuals like me.

The Liberals will try to slough this off by saying that the majority of what we are talking about today is the responsibility of the provinces, but make no mistake: The federal government has a significant role to play.

Language is powerful. When the Prime Minister decides to demonize a certain section of this society and a certain portion of our population, that is wrong, and he incites violence.

Travel by plane, train or public transportation requires vaccination. Many public sector employees are working from home, yet they lost their jobs because they did not choose to be vaccinated. Truckers and other essential service workers stay in their trucks. Please tell me the science behind that decision. How are they spreading the virus? The Prime Minister likes to use science, but only when it serves his desire to hold power. If it requires him to grant people their freedom, then he wants to ignore it altogether. That is wrong.

Dr. Tam has said that all public health policies need to be re- examined. She said that we need to recognize that this virus is not going to disappear and that we need to address the ongoing presence of the virus in a more sustainable way. The World Health Organization has advised that vaccine passports should not be required to enter or exit a country.

Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the science? It is time for leadership. It is time for action. It is time to put together a plan. It is time to be compassionate toward the Canadian people.

Even today, during QP, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence said, “It is important more than ever to ensure that the Canadian public is informed about the ways in which we are going to get out of this pandemic”. I sure hope his colleagues across the aisle agree with him on that. It is time for a plan. It is time to restore hope. It is time to move forward into the future. It is time for the Prime Minister to make good on his promise.

Canadians are waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects that I would challenge that the member attempts to state as fact. My biggest concern is when she talks about mandates. Let us talk about, for example, the mandates of having to wear masks, lockdowns or partial shutdowns that have really been the responsibility of provincial governments.

Does she believe there is a lack of leadership in our provincial legislatures across the country or do those mandates not matter to her on the issue of freedom?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is classic Liberal strategy. Liberals want to divide. That is their strategy. If they can pit one group against another, if they can create something that does not actually exist, they will do it. They should not try to distract. The issue is federal. The Prime Minister has a responsibility for the language that he uses, and he has been inciting hate and violence across this country for quite some time now.

The issue is travel restrictions. That is a federal issue. The issue is federally regulated employees. That is a federal issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Federal employees are a federal issue. Yes, I got that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You got that. You're a smart one. I was not sure given the question, so I thought I would clarify.

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

I would ask members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lethbridge for her speech. I have a few questions for her.

I find that there certainly is a muddying of the waters when we talk about all the provincial jurisdictions. However, she used two words that I appreciated, and they are “courage” and “solution”, words that should be top of mind for everyone.

I would like to have her thoughts on two things.

She spoke about the provinces. We know that they are stretched to the limit given the gap in the health transfers from the government, which does not even want to talk to the premiers of Quebec and the provinces. I find that shows a lack of leadership.

She also said that the government is dividing people. We talked about this earlier today. We would like to have a meeting with the leader of the official opposition and the leaders of the Bloc Québécois and the third opposition party.

Would she agree that these are two examples of leadership that could get us out of this crisis?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that question. I will do my best.

This pandemic has certainly highlighted that the health care system is fragile. A lot has been left up to the provinces in the abdication of federal leadership, and that is very sad. Much more can be done and should be done.

When we were in the middle of the election campaign, which was an unnecessary election put forward by the Prime Minister only to divide Canadians further, Conservatives made a commitment to contribute $60 billion to the health care system in order to advance it, grow it and make it better. That was our commitment. I have not seen the government make a similar commitment. I have not seen it follow through on helping the provinces meet the demand on their fragile health care systems right now, and they are in desperate need of attention.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that we are dealing with a federal mandate and I appreciate that, but the opening words of the Conservative motion are, “That, given that provinces are lifting COVID-19 restrictions”, and it goes on to use that as the basis of the motion. I know my hon. colleague is from Alberta and we know that Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is removing restrictions very soon, so I want to make a couple of comments and get the member's position.

Dr. Noel Gibney, professor emeritus at the department of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, said, “What we’ve heard today is wishful thinking and an element of COVID denial where the government is saying, ‘Really, this isn’t a problem anymore,’ while we still have a major Omicron surge causing pressure on our hospital systems”.

Heather Smith, president of the United Nurses of Alberta, said:

I think it is way too premature.... It's not evidence-based and it's irresponsible and reckless.

I'm very concerned that it is not only unsafe but it is asking for more deaths, more ill-health here in the province...

Finally, Dr. Stephanie Smith at the University of Alberta, a hospital physician and infectious disease specialist, said:

...there are many still waiting for their elective surgeries and to have all these restrictions removed with the possibility of having some increased transmission and maybe more hospitalizations, that’s just pushing those surgeries further down the line, which is not what we are trying to achieve.

I have a straightforward question. Does the member support lifting restrictions in Alberta now?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House has to do with the federal level. It has to with lifting the mandates that are currently on travel, that are currently on federal employees and that are on truckers and other essential service workers being able to cross the border. I am also talking about the vile language that is coming out of the Prime Minister's mouth ad nauseam, and it needs to stop. That is what we are talking about today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight to speak to this extremely important issue. I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with our wonderful whip, the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

I will read the Conservatives' motion, which is quite short and pretty self-explanatory, because I want people to have a clear understanding of what we are talking about today. I am really addressing my comments to the people back home because, as it is plain to see, Quebeckers are all fed up. They have had enough of health measures in general and are eager to move on. I hear it a lot at home, just like everywhere else. Therefore, it is to them that I speak today.

I will read the motion:

That, given that provinces are lifting COVID-19 restrictions and that Dr. Theresa Tam has said that all existing public health measures need to be “re-evaluated” so that we can “get back to some normalcy”, the House call on the government to table a plan for the lifting of all federal mandates and restrictions, and to table that plan by February 28, 2022.

It is not a bad motion. In fact, it is a very good motion, seeking some predictability. We have not had any for such a long time, for two years, with everything that has been put in place by the federal government. We understand that this is a unique situation.

I will refer to a tweet that I saw from a Quebec comedian I will call Louis T. He says that asking for a concrete plan is like asking the Weather Network to tell us exactly what the weather will be like in the next few days so that we do not have to worry about unpredictability and know when we can wear shorts.

We understand that it would be a bit of a stretch to ask for a clear picture of what is going to happen, because even the government does not know. We all saw it. When omicron hit us hard just before the holidays, it seemed like things were going well. Parliament here was full. We thought that we had put much of the pandemic behind us, but then it started up again. I myself caught COVID-19 over the holidays. I can say that it was no fun at all. I was pretty sick for 10 days, so we never know what can happen.

We understand what the government means when it says we need to be cautious and listen to public health guidelines. We completely agree and are calling for that as well. We must listen to public health guidelines and reassess measures that are no longer relevant. That is what provincial governments are mostly doing now. That is what is happening in Quebec. Things are moving gradually. The Legault government did not announce that all measures would be lifted overnight. That is not how it works. He gave dates for restaurants or theatres to reopen, for example, or for when it might be possible to have more guests in private residences.

People have an idea of what is coming. I think that gives hope to the people who are tired of all this. Knowing that we will be able to start having guests over and see our families gives people some joy. It is good for them. Just hearing that can make people feel more positive.

This is not about getting a date to lift all federal measures. Not at all. This is about wanting a plan so that we know what is coming. I completely agree with the Conservatives. I think we and all Quebeckers and Canadians need to know what is coming.

This week we learned that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are not alone in thinking this. The member for Louis-Hébert thinks so as well. He called on the government to develop a clear plan for moving forward.

That reminds me of what is happening outside. At first, people said that perhaps the protesters did not know enough about why the health measures were in place, and that perhaps it had not been properly explained to them. In Quebec, we have seen the Legault government giving almost weekly updates and explaining why each measure is important, why it is in place and when it might be lifted. I have not seen the federal government do as much of that in the last few months or years of the pandemic. It would introduce a measure, then say that it was not really based on public health recommendations, but that it was implementing it anyway. We saw this several times. People are wondering why. They are wondering what is going on, and they are not necessarily getting any reassurances.

I think it would be good to come up with a reopening plan and to really explain why today, it is good to have border restrictions, and why in three weeks, for example, it might be all right to lift them. The reasons need to be explained. We do not want people to feel as if they have been working hard for two years for nothing, because the number of cases is still high. We do not want them to think that we have decided to lift the restrictions just because everyone is fed up.

I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say several times that we really need to listen to public health and not give in to pressure. I am thinking about the truckers' convoy right now. It is not a public health advisory, and I liked what the minister said, even though I do not always agree with what Liberal ministers say.

It is true that we have to go by what public health says and we must listen to the experts. I think we have reached a turning point where we are able to reassess what has been implemented.

Today I was listening to some of the speeches by Conservative colleagues, who took the opportunity to talk about the rules and health measures in place in the provinces, as well as vaccination. Some are against vaccination, but I do not think that the House is the ideal place to talk about that. It is time to call for a clear plan.

There are not that many federal measures compared to the provincial measures. At the federal level, we are talking about measures that were put in place at the borders, which, again, benefit everyone: the use of ArriveCAN, the requirement to show proof of vaccination for travellers and, obviously, for truckers at the border, the PCR screening tests, quarantine in the federally mandated quarantine hotels that everyone will recall, the requirement to show proof of vaccination on federally regulated modes of transportation such as train or ships, mask wearing in federal buildings, and, of course, the vaccine mandate for employees of the public service.

It is not like we need to look at a hundred measures. I think is reasonable enough to wonder whether the numbers from the past few months prove that these measures have yielded tangible results and whether, given the current percentage of the population that is vaccinated, we could, if not lift the lockdown, at least relax the restrictions a bit.

I think those are some of the questions we should be asking to give our struggling businesses some predictability. I am thinking of businesses in the tourism, hospitality and aerospace industries, which are very much affected by these measures, particularly the border measures. We need to give them a game plan to tell them when they can start thinking about all of that again. We have seen how hard the Quebec government's measures have been on restaurants, which were given 24 hours' notice that they would have to close or a few days' notice that they could reopen. It has not always been easy for them to change tack so quickly. If the federal government could come up with a plan with specific dates, I think that would help them prepare as best as possible to get back to business.

I also wanted to talk about another point the member for Louis-Hébert raised, and that is health transfers. The Bloc Québécois has been talking about health transfers non-stop for the past two years, to the the point where I am wondering why the federal government has not taken any action on that, since it must be sick of hearing us talking about transfers.

Furthermore, the Conservatives have joined our call in recent weeks, as have the NDP and the provinces through the Council of the Federation, which met recently. Once again, the request is unanimous. We will keep talking about it, but I think enough has been said and the federal government has heard sufficient sound arguments to finally agree to this request.

Why are lockdowns needed? It is because our health care systems are incapable of dealing with the impact of COVID-19. We have seen this in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. Increasing health transfers is crucial for the future because, as I said, the omicron variant hit us without warning, and there is no guarantee that we will be insulated from another pandemic or another variant. Our health care systems must be ready to deal with them.

The federal government has a duty to transfer money to the provinces and Quebec. I think this is a fairly legitimate request, since it is clear that our health care professionals have been stretched thin for months if not years. They need a little help, and I think the federal government could provide it.

I see my time is running out. I would have liked to speak to a number of other issues, but our whip will perhaps be able to fill in the gaps later, in her speech. I would be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

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

Madam Speaker, to imply that there is no plan is somewhat misleading. I believe there has been a plan right from the very beginning.

Six weeks to two months ago, no one could have anticipated that the Province of Quebec would institute a curfew, for example, to deal with omicron. The issue is that the pandemic is far from being over.

I wonder if the member, in principle, believes that the principles she is trying to apply to Ottawa should also apply to provincial jurisdictions. Does she believe that the provinces have plans? If not, should they all be providing a plan before the end of the month?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said a little earlier, Quebec definitely has a plan, which was announced this week. We have also seen Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario announce plans to reopen not too far down the road.

Other countries, such as Denmark, France, England and Sweden are on track to completely lift their health measures. At least, they have announced their intention to do so. That is all we are asking the federal government to do.

We agreed with the measures applied at the border, and the Bloc Québécois really insisted that the federal government take the appropriate steps at our borders to ensure the safety of Canadians.

However, at this stage, I think we can reassess the measures in place, and we need to show Canadians this is being done.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, many decisions have been made throughout the pandemic, and when politicians made them without the backstop of good medical advice, they were tragic. We saw this last summer in Alberta. In fact, we saw it in some form even here in Ontario. Quebec, fortunately, has had good leadership.

We want a concrete plan from the Prime Minister and the federal government, but does the member agree that the plan has to have the backstop of good medical advice on what we should be doing next, before politicians in this place can give Canadians the answer they are looking for?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

That is exactly what we have been asking for from the beginning: that the government listen to the public health authority. That is stated in the motion itself. Dr. Theresa Tam stated that all existing public health measures need to be re-evaluated. We are not saying that the plan must specify the date on which each measure will be lifted. That is not the case.

We are asking that if public health officials say that the border measures must be lifted, but that we must wait two more months to do it, that must be stated in the plan so we have an idea of what to expect in the short and medium terms. We are asking that this be done by listening to what public health authorities have to say. Naturally the decision must not be a political one; it must come from the public health authority.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

It lets us reframe the Conservatives' request today. It is fine to throw out a request for a plan to lift health restrictions, but what exactly does that look like?

My colleague outlined all the elements involved, which, for the most part, are the responsibility of the provinces. I feel that the provinces have done their job in this matter. Quebec, in any case, really did its job. What is missing are the health transfers going forward, that is to say the increase from 22% to 35% we are asking for. We are not going to back down. She spoke about this as well.

I would like her to answer the following questions. Why did the Conservatives move this motion today? Why are we spending the day on this? Is it public pressure, is it the trucks in the streets?

What does she believe to be the reason for this?

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

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has just five seconds to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

It is a little hard to discern the Conservatives' position. We have heard the potential future leader of the Conservatives demanding freedom and encouraging the convoy. However, we have also heard other Conservatives—

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

Order. The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, because we in the Bloc Québécois have a terrific team. I will try not to repeat what she said, but I agree with everything she did say, which I support.

I do not know if this has been done today, but I would still like to take the time to extend my condolences and sympathies to the 35,000 families who have lost loved ones to COVID‑19 in the last two years. We sometimes forget that these people went through a human tragedy and lost someone dear to them.

I would also like to take a few moments to quickly thank the health care workers in both the public and community systems. When we talk about the public health care system, we talk a lot about nurses and assistants, but there are also all of the other professionals in the system who help keep it running day after day so that care can be provided, not only to people with COVID-19, but also to those who need treatment or surgery for other health problems. I therefore want to say a big thank you to public and community health care workers.

My riding shares a border with the United States and is home to four border crossings: Dundee, Herdman, Hemmingford and Trout River. I would therefore especially like to thank the border officers, whom I have been talking to. They have sometimes had to grapple with instructions that were not very clear and implement health measures without the help of suitable tools or sufficient time to prepare. Their job has not always been easy. They have had to deal with travellers and people, including some of my constituents, who are having trouble getting across the border to visit their families in New York state.

There are a lot of people who have been and still are having trouble because of their family situation or because they live close to the border. I therefore want to thank our border officers and express my sympathy to the people in my riding who have struggled because of the pandemic but also because of problems getting across the border to see loved ones or help sick family members. We have not talked very much about our border officers, so I wanted to mention them, because they played an important role during the pandemic.

I agree with my colleague that our knowledge about the virus has grown. From what we have learned from public health, we see that it is time to reassess all the measures that have been put in place to fight the pandemic and stop the spread of the virus.

Today's motion appears to acknowledge that the provinces are easing lockdowns and have their own plans and to get the federal government to work in tandem with the provinces. The idea is to give the businesses, which suffered the most, a federal plan with a timeline for when they can expect to get back to a more normal schedule and to give people an idea of when they will be able to access services or see measures lifted.

As my colleague pointed out, the motion does not say that all measures will be lifted on February 28. I think that would be irresponsible. Naturally, even after the plan is presented, some measures, like masks, will remain. Even if that requirement were lifted, I would be uncomfortable flying without a mask. I think we will have to learn to live with masks.

However, I think we need to reassess everything. As I was reflecting on today's debate, I remembered something that many other members in the House have noted. The current government has a hard time communicating its own directives and is slow to do so. This was clear over the past two years when we had to push the federal government to announce, implement and explain measures.

There is currently some confusion between federal and provincial measures, which are clear as mud. Some public restrictions are imposed by the provinces while others are imposed by the federal government. There is confusion and people are noticing a lack of consistency as well.

Here is one example. Let us say that I had COVID-19 and I go to Punta Cana. If I had COVID-19 and I go to Punta Cana, I can cross the border without having to get a PCR or any other kind of COVID test for six months. However, if I have three doses of the vaccine, I have to provide proof of vaccination and test results. People do not understand this discrepancy.

Perhaps there is some scientific basis for the fact that, if a person had COVID-19, they do not have to be tested for six months, but if they have three doses of the vaccine, they still have to be tested to cross the border. I am not a scientist, but what I do know is that people are confused. They do not understand this measure.

People do not understand why, if they travel with an unvaccinated child under the age of five, the child has to isolate for 14 days when they return. In Quebec, children under the age of 5 with COVID-19 symptoms have to isolate for five days. When they no longer have a fever, they can go back to school or day care.

There are some guidelines that seem inconsistent, and pandemic fatigue is being exacerbated by these inconsistencies. People are frustrated and, as my colleague said, we get that. In Quebec in particular, 80% of people have received two doses of the vaccine. People feel as though they have done their part. Things are tense right now. It is as if there are two camps: the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. People are starting to say that the unvaccinated are bad and the vaccinated are good.

I do not agree with that at all because I do not believe that the world is black and white. There are people who cannot get vaccinated. Constituents have called my office to explain that they were waiting to receive a medical assessment to get their medical exemption. When people talk about the unvaccinated, they feel wrongly judged, and this is creating a bad social climate right now. It is high time we thought about this and maybe came up with a plan.

I think it is important for us to say this today. I have heard many members talk in their speeches of health measures that are under provincial jurisdiction rather than talking about the ones that are the federal government's responsibility. Basically, the measures we are talking about today are not the ones that affect people on a daily basis, unless we count federal public servants. We are talking about measures that affect those who cross the border by train or by boat, or those who want to travel. This is about the border issue. The measures people are fed up with are mostly the ones that are under provincial jurisdiction.

There is some confusion. Once again, I think that if the provinces and other countries were able to come up with plans, it is high time the federal government also presented its own plan, to ensure that it coordinates and aligns its efforts with the provinces.

I will conclude by saying that I dream of a country, a country that manages its borders, takes sole and full responsibility for the management of its borders, and manages its own areas of jurisdiction. That would be much simpler, because there would be less confusion. In the meantime, in Quebec, we will continue to demand our due, which is to get back the money that we pay to Ottawa, so we can pay for our health care and build a strong and robust system to help and support all our citizens.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague made an interesting allusion at the end of her speech when she talked about the country and about the advantages proper border management would afford in providing more consistent health care.

It probably would have been a very good thing for Quebec to be independent during the pandemic, particularly during the previous waves.

My colleague also ended her speech by talking about health transfers. When we talk about increasing health transfers to 35% in a region like mine, it means, on a per capita basis, at least $120 million per year in predictable transfers for the CISSSAT. The government has the opportunity to take action and help our health care system.

Will it heed this urgent call for help?

Does my colleague believe that the Prime Minister will show some leadership and finally call a premiers' summit?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. I do not get the sense that the Prime Minister understands the urgency of the situation.

This gives me an opportunity to explain to him that all of the provincial premiers are calling for a 35% increase in funding because it is not Dr. Tam or her team or the Public Health Agency of Canada that provides care in hospitals, long-term care facilities and private residences.

Quebec health care workers are the ones who do that and, right now, the Quebec government is crying for help. It cannot fulfill all of its responsibilities and provide the level of service required because Ottawa is holding back a portion of the money collected from Quebeckers. Ottawa wants to give the money back with strings attached, and that is unacceptable.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to my hon. colleague. Obviously we are here talking about COVID protocols, but consider what we are seeing in Ottawa and, indeed, what we are seeing around the country. It is being reported that this is more than just a protest. This is a coordinated effort to occupy critical infrastructure across the country. It is having a major impact on our cross-border trade. It is a crazy disruption to residents downtown. Indeed, even this morning, as I was flying back to Nova Scotia, there was a coordinated effort to create disruption at the Ottawa International Airport.

Would the member agree with me in the sense that this is moving beyond a protest to a coordinated effort, almost in the mode of an insurrection, such that it is becoming a national security issue and has to be dealt with as such?