Debates of Feb. 14th, 2022

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also heard from many constituents in my province when omicron became a very grave situation at the end of December, prior to the holiday period, that the availability of rapid tests was an issue. The province had just started to give them out to citizens.

I know for a fact that many citizens went and got those tests. They stood in line in -10°C or -30°C weather to get those rapid tests because the holidays were coming and they wanted to make sure they did not infect anybody. They wanted to take the necessary precautions. They also said that they did not want to be in that kind of a situation again.

I also know that in about three weeks, in my home province, it is going to be spring break. I know that things are loosening up in my home province. People are going to want to have those rapid tests in the event that they become symptomatic. They are going to want to have them. Are we supposed to tell them we are sorry but we needed to study a piece of legislation that is literally two lines?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had been able to have tests before Christmas. I really wish I would have. Many of my constituents and people across my province of Alberta wished they could have had them. Quite frankly, it was not always possible. I know we did not find availability for rapid tests in my home community of Fort McMurray until sometime in early January. I would have happily waited in -40°C in a line to get them, but it was not even an option.

We are not debating whether we should have stuff. What we are debating right now is simply having a little extra oversight. The bill is retroactive to January 1, 2022.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too heard our colleague from Kingston and the Islands answer a question earlier about why the government did not include the amounts for rapid tests in Bill C-8.

He said that it was because there was no omicron variant when Bill C-8 was drafted in December, at the time the update was done. However, we did have the delta variant and a pandemic, and we knew it was not going to be over any time soon.

Does my colleague think that there is a certain lack of predictability, a lack of vision and, in this case, a lack of medium-term perspective from the government, which is rushing us to pass a bill that will not even be looked at by the Senate until next week since the Senate is not sitting this week?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

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

I think she is absolutely right. When it comes to COVID‑19, the Liberal Party has not been transparent enough, especially on vaccine procurement. I think she made a good point. This is just one other aspect of the problem.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what price would the member be immediately comfortable with so that parents across Canada could have the same peace of mind that the member enjoyed to make sure that their kids are healthy?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to state that it is not necessarily simply about the price. It is about making sure that there is a bit of oversight and that it goes to committee.

I am not against this bill and I want to make that exceptionally clear. This is an important public health tool that Canadians should have access to. The member for Nunavut very clearly outlined why rapid testing is very important in her region. I thank her for bringing that up because it is so important in many of our rural and isolated communities. It is not necessarily about the dollar figure. It is a question of having oversight.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this Valentine's Day evening, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I would also like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to my partner, Yanick Thibault. We have been together for 26 years, and I thank him for sharing me with all the people of Laurentides—Labelle.

We have spent several hours today talking about Bill C‑10, which provides for a one-time payment of up to $2.5 billion to the provinces and territories for expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022, for tests. The money is to help the provinces and Quebec absorb additional pandemic-related costs.

The government upped health transfers by $5 billion in the previous Parliament. That included $4 billion for urgent health care system needs and $1 billion for the vaccination campaign. We all agree that was necessary, but that money is completely separate from requests to increase the federal government's share of health care costs to 35%.

It has to be said. The Liberals will try to make themselves look good by saying that the billions of dollars they spent went directly to fixing the problems in health care. However, the Bloc Québécois is duty bound to point out that, despite the $60 billion or so that has been injected, the Liberals have not exactly done anything out of the ordinary. This spending was necessary to deal with this pandemic, which is an exceptional situation.

I am sorry to see the government using these sums as an excuse not to increase funding and to put it off until later, possibly 2027. This does not make sense because the problems will remain after the pandemic.

I want to be very clear that our voice will be heard over and over again, speaking for the Quebec government. I will continue to illustrate that this issue is crucial to getting through the pandemic.

The federal government stands alone on this matter. We cannot forget that the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois have called for an increase in health transfers to cover 35% of health care costs. The federal government wants to postpone the issue of funding until after the pandemic, possibly until 2027. Not only is this completely out of touch with reality, but the federal government is also the only one to think that way.

The Bloc Québécois wants a society that has a universal, public health care system worthy of a G7 country. Without that, we cannot properly deal with health care problems.

In fact, that money could bring in alternative measures for the entire nation. For those watching us at this late hour, on Valentine's Day, remember that the federal contribution went from 50% of health care costs in the 1950s and 1960s to 22% today.

The division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces in 1867, which was quite a while ago, is quite simple. In 19th-century terms, if the issue directly affected people and how they organize their society, it fell under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This included civil laws that codify interpersonal relations, the organization of society through social, health and education programs, and also cultural issues. If an issue did not directly affect people or the internal organization of their society, it could fall under federal jurisdiction. This could be monetary policy, international trade, and general trade and industry regulations.

To compensate for the withdrawal of the federal government's investment, Quebec and the provinces had no choice but to scale back services and run the system at full capacity.

The system broke down. Our young people, seniors, parents, business people and health care staff will not agree to lockdown indefinitely to protect the health care system. That is exactly why we need to start rebuilding our health care system immediately.

It is unacceptable. We know more money will not fix everything overnight. However, without funding we cannot start building our ideal health care system. That includes mental health services available to everyone when they need them; good working conditions for nurses and all other health care workers; training to hire staff, who are so invaluable; and support services for people dealing with addictions. This list goes on.

Once again, the government is completely alone on this issue. All of the opposition parties and the premiers of the provinces and Quebec—and that is big—are calling for an increase in health transfers, as are the health care unions, Canada's public health authorities, the majority of medical and patient associations, and even one of the government's own MPs. That is not to mention the fact that, on February 2, a poll showed that 87% of Quebeckers and Canadians were also calling for an increase in health transfers.

I urge the Prime Minister to acknowledge this consensus and to immediately meet with his counterparts, as he did today on another matter, to negotiate an increase in health transfers and get things moving. The federal government needs to stop arguing over jurisdictions. It is time to rebuild.

Since I have a little time remaining, I would also like to talk about vaccination in developing countries, because this pandemic will not end until that happens. Until all countries have adequate vaccine coverage, there will always be a risk of new, more contagious, dangerous or resistant variants.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to take four actions to contribute to global vaccination coverage. Canada must provide logistical assistance to transport and administer doses; provide its surplus doses to developing countries on a predictable basis; support the waiving of vaccine patents; and participate in global vaccine outreach efforts to ensure that the vaccination campaign is a success around the world. It is important that people learn about the benefits of the vaccine, which is a challenge that both Quebec and the rest of Canada are facing.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a number of people who have contacted me recently about the Conservative motion we voted on today. The motion called on the government to table a plan by the end of the month, by February 28, that includes reopening steps. That is what the Bloc Québécois supported.

It is important to make that clear because some of the people who contacted me were misinformed. What the Bloc Québécois supported was calling on the government to govern and plan. Asking for a plan is the same as asking the government to govern, which is the least it can do. Nobody is asking the government to get rid of all public health measures by the end of the month. We are not even asking it to make an announcement on February 28 about a precise date when all public health measures will be lifted. All we want is a plan and some predictability.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spent her 10 minutes talking about some very important subjects, but I did not hear her position on Bill C‑10, so I would like to know if she will support it.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, there are several conditions for success. Of course, to make something happen, it has to be repeated. That is what I have learned from federal politics. I tell my kids that they have to do a thing a thousand and one times.

That is what we are doing. Many things are important, such as providing rapid tests and injecting one-time payments to meet a need. Those are part of it, but for the future and going forward, I will never stop calling for an increase in health transfers to 35% until that happens.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech. I think she gave a very accurate and compelling case for why the federal government needs to increase its Canada health transfers to the provinces. I think we all, on this side of the House, in the NDP, join in that feeling that the 22% share of federal health spending in this country is not sufficient.

I know the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have, to some degree, a difference of opinion on the jurisdiction of health care in this country. We also know there are conditions in the Canada Health Act. There are five major conditions that every province has to meet in order to get that funding.

I am wondering if the member would describe to the House what kind of accountability she would have the provinces demonstrate in exchange for that money from the federal government. Does she accept that the provinces should have to at least show that they are spending the money in health care, and maybe account to the taxpayers of this country how that money is being spent, or does she think there should be absolutely none of that whatsoever?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would say, essentially, that jurisdictions must be respected. In other words, trust the expertise of each province when it comes to what services are needed.

When we talk about health transfers, obviously they must be unconditional, because it is the provinces that have the expertise, not the federal government. The provinces have everything it takes when it comes to both education and health care.

I tell people that it is important for everyone to mind their own business. It is often when we do not have enough to do that we interfere in other people's business.

In the context of a pandemic where there are global challenges and a critical situation, I think we all need to mind our own business.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his inspiring speech.

We are debating a bill. However, contrary to what my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne was saying, just because we are debating a bill does not mean that we cannot consider items that are not covered by the bill but that are very important to us.

I would like to put a simple question to my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, who has been asked about jurisdictions.

Since today is Valentine's Day and I love my country, I would like to know what she thinks would happen if Quebec got to keep its own money. Would the situation be the same?

Would we be dependent upon a government that wants to spend money in any area of jurisdiction and that is not meeting the people's needs? If we had full control of our own funds, would the health care system in Quebec not work a little better?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I heard the words “predictability”, “expertise” and “jurisdiction". We must trust the people who have been saying for several months that they would have done things differently. Instead of crushing and pressuring the health care system, which broke down in Quebec, I believe we could have already introduced new solutions.

In the end, with predictability and money, we would clearly have done things in a completely different way.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑10 establishes a one-time payment of $2.5 billion to Quebec and the Canadian provinces for expenses incurred since January 1, 2022, in relation to testing.

We agree with that, but the main problem, and my colleague spoke at length about this before me, is that cuts to federal health transfers are compromising the health care system in Quebec and in the Canadian provinces. From our Quebec taxes that we send to the federal government, the money transferred to Quebec for health care formerly represented 50% of the funding for that sector in the 1970s. We cannot say it enough. Despite being increased a few times, like when the Bloc Québécois obtained a $3.3‑billion increase in transfers in 2007, Ottawa's share of the cost of health keeps going down. Today, the transfers represent only 22% of health spending.

Just before the election in 2011, the Bloc convinced Ottawa to catch up and to keep increasing the transfers by 6% over five years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives decided that starting in 2016, the transfers would stop keeping pace with the increasing costs and capped them at 3%. However, health care costs have been increasing by roughly 5% a year, due in part to population aging. In Quebec, where the population is aging faster than the Canadian average, we are being hit hard. That is what we call the fiscal imbalance. We are paying nearly half our taxes to Ottawa, but most of the public services are being provided by Quebec or the Canadian provinces, while the federal government does whatever it wants.

At the end of the day, Ottawa is undermining Quebec's finances, and Quebec taxpayers are paying the price and receiving fewer and fewer services. According to a study by the Conference Board of Canada, with the current transfer method, in 20 years, the federal government should rake in a $110‑billion surplus, based on this calculation method, but the provinces will run a combined deficit of $172 billion. That is how the federal government can afford to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

If the trend continues, federal health transfers will drop from 22% of health care expenses to 18% within a few years. It is no wonder that Quebec and the Canadian provinces are calling for the federal government to increase health transfers to cover 35% of health care spending, which would be more than $6.5 billion for Quebec. The government's position of putting off discussing the funding issue until after the pandemic is completely out of touch with reality.

I have been a member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois since 2016. The one thing that struck me when I came to the House of Commons was that the Canadian government is always quick to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, but it does not step up when it needs to take care of its own business, in its own jurisdiction.

The federal government must not continue to use these payments as an excuse to increase its funding and interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction and put off discussing health transfers. The Bloc Québécois will continue to make the point that increased health transfers are a necessary part of getting us through this pandemic, and it will be even more difficult to rebuild and stabilize our health care systems.

The needs are urgent in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île. The proportion of people aged 65 and over is higher than in the rest of Montreal. Life expectancy is lower than the average. Approximately two in three people aged 65 and older in La Pointe-de-l'Île have at least one chronic illness. Lung diseases and respiratory illnesses are more common in La Pointe-de-l'Île. Quebec's health care challenges are not strictly a management issue. The refusal by the Liberals and the other federal parties to increase health transfers to 35% is a prime example of predatory federalism.

Quebec is the one providing health care services, and we are in the middle of a pandemic. Quebec pays close to half our taxes to Ottawa, yet provides the lion's share of the services.

The Bloc Québécois succeeded in passing a motion to increase health transfers even though the Liberals voted against it. We know more money will not fix everything overnight, but without higher health transfers on an ongoing basis, we cannot start building the health system we want. That includes services available to everyone when they need them, good working conditions for nurses so we can retain them, training to hire more nurses and doctors, and support services for people dealing with addictions.

We cannot make these decisions and achieve this vision unless the federal government agrees to give back the money it takes from our taxes to fund the health care system. Health transfers must be restored urgently so we can breathe life back into our system.

I would also like to emphasize a key point here. While it is up to Quebec to choose the specific health services it wants to provide, respect for jurisdiction is quite simply an essential condition for respecting democracy. There are provincial jurisdictions and federal jurisdictions. If that is not respected, when people vote for a government in Quebec, that means they are voting for any old thing because we do not have the power to fulfill our commitments.

Quebeckers need to be given the right to determine their specific preferences with regard to health. The Bloc Québécois is against the federal government's centralist tendency. Ottawa is using the pandemic as an excuse to interfere in all sorts of domains, including long-term care institutions, mental health services and pharmacare. These elements are provincial responsibilities. Since Quebec and the provinces know what their people need, they should be the ones to determine how this money is allocated.

As we have pointed out, the government is completely isolated on this issue. My colleague said so earlier. All the opposition parties are calling for an increase in health transfers. All the provinces are calling for an increase in health transfers. All the premiers of the provinces and Quebec are calling on the federal government to increase health transfers. A 2020 survey found that 81% of Quebeckers want the federal government to increase its health transfers. That should be clear enough, but it is never clear enough.

We ask questions all the time and remind the Liberal members of this, and we are told again and again that funding has increased during the pandemic and so on. An increase in health funding during a pandemic is not a recurring increase. If health transfers are not increased, the federal share of health care spending will steadily decline, and our health care systems will be under enormous pressure. The provinces cannot make cuts to hospitals. We are asking once again, and we will continue asking, that the federal government increase health transfers. It is urgent.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether one lives in St-Pierre-Jolys in rural Manitoba or St. Boniface in the city of Winnipeg or in rural communities in Quebec or the city of Montreal, I think there is a general feeling among people in all communities that they want to see co-operation among different levels of government on the important issue of health care.

Through the Canada Health Act, there is a significant flow of federal tax dollars to support health care so that there is a sense of fairness whether people require health care service in Montreal or in Winnipeg. I am wondering if the member could indicate why he does not believe there needs to be a sense of equality and fairness in the distribution of health care services, no matter where people live in in Canada.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, equality is exactly what we are asking for.

When we talk about increasing health transfers to 35%, it is not only Quebec asking for this, but all the provinces.

This is not something that only Quebec is asking for, as I just said. This really illustrates the problem we have with the federal system. We have a government that constantly centralizes power and makes decisions that interfere with the decisions made by Quebec and the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for his speech.

I obviously agree with him that our public health care system has really been devastated by the Conservatives' cuts to provincial transfers, cuts that the Liberals maintained.

However, my colleague and I do not quite agree on the impact of a universal public pharmacare program, which would not only enable the public health network to save money on drugs, but would also help workers and businesses save too.

My colleague does not agree with the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the Union des consommateurs du Québec that there should be a universal public pharmacare program to ensure better coverage for everyone and reduce the cost of drugs. It would also mean savings for Quebec's health care network.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has said it before, and we will say it again: Quebec leads the way on prescription drug insurance.

We are not opposed to the idea of Canada as a whole taking our lead and doing likewise. However, we do not want Quebec to be penalized because we are ahead of the curve.

We agree with my colleague's proposal, as long as there is a clause that lets Quebec opt out with full compensation so we can continue to improve our own system.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in the final hours of Valentine's Day, and Valentine's Day is all about love.

Who else but my colleague, who speaks French with such passion, energy and love, can teach the Liberals the difference between “recurring” and “sporadic”?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that we in the Bloc Québécois love Quebec enough to hope that it manages to get by after all these decisions, which basically make us less effective in our government administration.

There is only one truly sustainable solution that would free us from being at the mercy of the federal government's health transfer cuts, and that is Quebec independence. That is what I want. I am convinced it will come to this, because we have no choice, especially given that, if we want to continue to exist and develop as a people, we must have full control over our finances, our economy, our language and our culture.

In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois is the only federal party that defends and promotes the interests of Quebec as a nation and actively works to promote independence. This is our only way forward.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise tonight to speak to this important bill. I am particularly pleased to split my time with the brilliant member for Elmwood—Transcona.

This legislation is extraordinarily straightforward and simple. It would authorize the Minister of Health to do two things: first, to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund for any expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022, in relation to COVID-19 tests, and second, to transfer to any province or territory or to any body or person in Canada any COVID-19 tests or instruments used in relation to those tests acquired on or after April 1, 2021.

New Democrats strongly believe that we must expand access to COVID-19 testing for Canadians and do so as quickly as possible. Therefore, we of course will be supporting this legislation.

COVID-19 has underscored the crucial role of testing and surveillance in controlling infectious disease outbreaks and guiding sound public health decisions. In fact, listening to the debate over mandates and whether we should or should not have them, I think one thing we can all agree on is that testing will be a critical component of our ability to relax and ultimately relinquish those mandates because we will be able to get quick and accurate information about the outbreak of disease, as is demonstrated in every country in the world that is using these tests.

However, it is also true that Canada has suffered from severe limitations on testing capacity through wave after wave of this pandemic as a result of the federal government's repeated failure to stockpile sufficient supplies or accelerate domestic production capacity. With the emergence of the highly transmissible omicron variant, an exponential surge of COVID-19 cases has once again overwhelmed Canada's testing capacity while the federal government now scrambles to secure supplies in a highly competitive global marketplace. As a result, COVID-19 testing has become inaccessible for many Canadians from coast to coast to coast; reported case numbers underestimate the true number of infections, making it difficult to plan public health measures; and contact tracing efforts have been largely abandoned. Canadians may remember the tracing app that the federal government unleashed to great fanfare; it is now nowhere to be found and abandoned.

In response to shortages throughout the omicron surge, many provinces have had to restrict access to PCR testing to individuals who are at higher risk of severe illness and those in settings where the virus may spread more quickly. PCR testing, of course, is more precise than rapid antigen testing, and positive results from rapid test kits are not even reported in official COVID-19 case counts, again underestimating the prevalence of COVID in our country. However, rapid antigen tests are considered an important screening tool. Research shows that they are instrumental in preventing asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 because they provide quick and generally reliable results. Unfortunately, rapid tests have also been very difficult for Canadians to access, particularly during the recent holiday season.

To stop and summarize here, we have a bill with two sections: one for $2.5 billion to get rapid tests and the other to transfer them to the provinces and territories. What do my colleagues in the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois say? They say we need to slow this down. They say they need to study this.

There is nothing to study. We are in an emergency. We are in a pandemic. Testing and tracing are especially important for asymptomatic Canadians and are key tools in returning to normal, so when the Conservatives say they want to reduce mandates but are slowing down the delivery of rapid tests, one of the tools to help us reduce and get rid of the mandates, it is inconceivable.

Second, there is a shortage of all tests in this country, both PCR and rapid tests. Canadians know this. In every province and territory, Canadians cannot get access to the rapid tests or the PCR tests that they need. Provinces and health care systems are rationing access to tests. What is the Conservative and Bloc response? Wait, slow it down; we need to study this. Again, there is nothing to study.

We have an emergency, we have a shortage and we have a pandemic. We need to act and, again, the Conservative and Bloc members now oppose fast-tracking the delivery of these tests to Canadians.

I want to talk for a moment about accountability, because that has been raised by the Conservatives. I agree that $2.5 billion is a significant amount of money. What did the NDP do? We identified that feature to the government, and we did what every responsible opposition party should have done. We did not hold up delivering rapid tests to Canadians; instead, we negotiated accountability measures with the government. I give the government credit, and I want to thank the Liberals for this. They agreed that they will report to Parliament, every six months, the number of tests delivered, where they were delivered and when, providing accountability not only to Parliament but to Canadians. That is responsible behaviour in a minority Parliament. That is effective opposition.

We know that the $2.5 billion will provide about 400 million tests. That sounds like a lot of tests, but it is not. Dr. David Juncker at McGill University estimates that we need 600 million to 700 million rapid tests per month, and then after omicron subsides, we would need two tests per person every week. We are already hearing that there is another variant on the way, omicron B.1, so we know that testing is going to be a requirement in this country for months if not years ahead. We also know that Canadians need them now.

I want to chat for a moment about what I have to describe as disarray in the Conservative Party and a total contradiction. Its members say it is the party of law and order, but they are now supporting anarchy and lawbreakers in the streets. They said for a year and half that rapid tests were what we needed. They identified rapid tests as critical to Canada's COVID strategy repeatedly, in every week and every month, right up until February of this year, and they were correct to do so. They were right. However, today, when this simple bill to get rapid tests quickly to Canadians comes before us, what do they want to do? They want to delay. They do not want rapid tests to go out tonight. Instead, they take up valuable time in the House so that we have to debate that we need rapid tests for Canadians, even though for years this is exactly what they have been calling for. They want to study it, but study what?

Today, I was shocked to hear a member of the health committee, a physician, question the value of testing and the science of testing. There is no science or reputable scientist in this country that supports this view. No one has raised the issue of the validity, the necessity or the utility of telling Canadians what their COVID status is or giving them the means to have a quick test. Ironically, that fits with Conservative MPs when they were resisting mandatory vaccination to come in the House. They told us to give them tests so they could show us they were negative to come into the House. They wanted rapid tests for themselves, but stand here in the House today and tell Canadians they cannot have rapid tests and they do not need them right away because we need to study this. That is rank hypocrisy of the highest order, and it is bad public health policy.

I want to end by talking a bit about equality, something that has not been mentioned in the House.

Federal measures to increase the supply of rapid testing kits are expected to particularly benefit people who are most at risk for contracting COVID-19 with severe outcomes. This includes people over the age of 60, people with chronic medical conditions, members of racialized communities and low-income Canadians, particularly those who work in frontline positions, like the clerks working in our stores, who come to work every single day to work with the public. The Conservatives and the Bloc tell us to hold up getting tests to those people, when they are putting their health on the line for us. Those working frontline jobs stand to benefit from reduced transmission, and they get that because of increased rapid testing, among other things.

Women are also overrepresented among the beneficiaries of this investment. We know that women comprise 53% of those aged 60 and over and 66% of those aged 90 to 95. Racialized women also stand to benefit, as they are more likely to be in essential frontline industries. In 2016, they accounted for 17% of those in health care and social assistance, compared with only 10% of overall employment.

I look forward to answering questions from my colleagues.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his remarks in the House this evening. It has been a very long day.

I want to talk about how we work together in the House. My colleague made a lot of really important points about the importance of science, the importance of data, the importance of a timely response and the importance of equity. I am sure my colleagues across the way would like to hear how important that really is.

In addition to the importance of rapid testing, we know we need more of it to have a sustainable supply to contend with omicron in the future. We have had much debate, and my colleagues across the way keep holding things up, including this legislation. However, they are also holding up the ability for us to collect the timely data we need from the Telus data for good project.

I would like to know if my colleague from the NDP will be supporting us in our efforts to work together to make sure we have all the science and all the data to keep Canadians safe.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises something very important, which is that health policy in this country should and must be driven by data, science and evidence. It should not be driven by political interests or wedge issues. I was very disappointed to see members of the Liberal caucus stand up and accuse the Prime Minister of using the COVID pandemic as a partisan wedge issue. I think members of the Conservative Party, who are flirting with insurrectionists in this country, are also engaging in politicizing this pandemic. Canadians can see that, and this should have nothing to do with how we deal with it.

We need data, and I want to point out, as I said in my speech, that when we do not have enough tests, we do not get an accurate view of how many people are testing positive or negative. When we do not have that data, we cannot create the kinds of public health responses we need, or target them in the right regions or areas, to respond appropriately.

We need to get this legislation passed right away. We need to get testing and every other public health tool into the hands of Canadians as soon as possible.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague from Vancouver for his great speech here tonight. One of the things folks back home are wondering about is the Liberal-NDP coalition that we seem to have in this place. I wonder if he could give his thoughts as to why he voted against our opposition day motion that we voted on earlier today.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague called my speech “great”.

There are a number of reasons for this. I think I speak for all Canadians when I say that we are entirely fatigued by COVID. Everybody wants to see a return to normal as soon as possible. However, we in the NDP believe that should be based on science and data, not on politics. We saw the interim leader of the Conservative Party move a motion in the House to get rid of mandates right after she was out publicly cavorting with the convoy and the people who are calling for an insurrection in this country. They are anti-vaxxers. They are flying swastika flags and Confederate flags. It shows the Conservatives are playing politics with this matter. The truth is that we are still in a pandemic, and we need public health officials to be guiding policy in this country, not politicians who are playing politics with the pandemic.