Debates of Feb. 14th, 2022

Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

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

Mr. Speaker, I already asked the member this, but I think he told me that the NDP would support health transfers up to 50%, even.

I asked him why he often proposes programs that would infringe on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

We are not against pharmacare or dental insurance. However, as these fall under provincial jurisdiction, we want them to be put in place by Quebec and the provinces.

Could he elaborate on that a bit?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the major difference, with great respect, is that the people in the Bloc Québécois continually misconstrue the Constitution. They think health care is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction, but it is not. It is a shared jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada said the federal government has the spending power, the criminal law power and other powers to enter into this area. We will not find the words “health care” in the Constitution. All that is in it is the establishment and maintenance of hospitals. That is what the provinces have. It does not say anything about dental care.

We need all levels of government working together to build the kind of health care system we need in this country. I believe the federal government should be a partner with the provinces. It is not just an issue for the provinces alone.

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

Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-10 is about funding rapid tests and we have been talking a lot in the House today about the pandemic, the nature of public health measures and how long they should or should not last, I want to start by recognizing how tired everybody is of the pandemic. Whether people support lifting all public health measures right now or not, we are all feeling pretty fatigued and we would like to see our way out of this. However, it is not something we can just declare an end to by fiat. If we could do that, we would have done it a long time ago.

I do not really believe anyone is happy about the restricted lives we have all had to live over the last two years. It is something we did out of necessity before the vaccine in order to protect ourselves from infection, the consequences of being infected with COVID and the severity of it from a health point of view without vaccination. Since vaccination, we have continued to live a restricted lifestyle because transmission continues and we know we are up against a virus that is adapting even as it spreads. It is one of the reasons it is so important that we get vaccines distributed to the rest of the world. Vaccinating those in Canada or in one particular country will not be enough. These variants multiply, and given how small a planet we now inhabit with the technology of travel and everything else, variants eventually come here to roost. That is why we are not out of the woods yet.

As much as the political debate has intensified in light of recent events and some provincial governments have decided to change course, we may well end up getting different advice from federal public health officials in respect of federal mandates. However, all that Dr. Tam has said so far is that it might make sense to re-evaluate them. She has not called for lifting them. I am firmly in the camp of those who believe that this debate has to be led by public health officials, who have our best interests at heart. I know they are trying to keep up to date with the emerging science of the pandemic and are giving their best recommendations for how to reduce suffering and death as a result of COVID-19. It is our job to focus on how we support people through the economic challenges that we have to face, while the health challenges are addressed by public health officials and frontline health workers who treat those who have been infected.

COVID-19 tests are going to be an important part of that and, indeed, it was not that long ago that it was the preferred solution by the Conservatives, who now seem to be of the view that we can lift all public health measures and be done with them. However, governments have tried that before, and we do not have to go outside the country to see that. We just have to look at Alberta as one example. In the summer, it decided to lift all public health measures, and it very quickly found itself in distress with high rates of hospitalization. It is pretty clear that when we take that approach, it does not work out in the way that we would all hope and wish for. We have an obligation as decision-makers to be sober-minded about these things, listen to what public health officials are saying and look at the evidence. That does not mean there is no room for debate, and the country is currently having a very lively debate. However, it does mean that we still have to let public health officials lead that discussion based on the best available evidence.

One of the important tools for public health officials, to the extent that they want to collect data about what is happening with COVID, is a testing regime, and rapid tests are important in that regard. It is difficult in Canada right now to access rapid tests. Even if we do not take the macro point of view of a public health official, there are a lot of Canadians out there who maybe want to go visit their mom and dad or granny and grandpa or a vulnerable family member who is immunocompromised. They want to take a rapid test before they head over there because they know that COVID is around and is easy to catch.

Someone may have it and not be symptomatic, so folks would like to be able to have access to tests as a best practice or an added layer of protection or reassurance in order to be able to make those visits and have some confidence that, when they visit their loved ones or their friends, they are not taking COVID-19 into their home and into their life. That is another reason, beyond the public health arguments and beyond the economic arguments in terms of testing, if we are going into a workplace, why it is important to have access to rapid tests and why this money is important.

There are some real issues around accountability with money in the Liberal government. I will spare members the list, because I certainly do not have enough time to give it all, but as the member for Vancouver Kingsway, my colleague and NDP House critic, was just highlighting, that was why when we were negotiating with the government around the swift passage of this bill, which is just a two-paragraph bill that authorizes spending for rapid tests and their distribution to the provinces, we were keen to include some better financial reporting requirements in there. That is why we got a commitment from the government to table information every six months in the House on how this money is being spent, such as how many tests and where they go. That is important. It is important, because we are talking about large sums of money. It is important, because there have been legitimate questions raised about the way the government has spent some COVID-19 funds, including around sole-source contracts. I think Canadians should get information on how this money is being spent and they should get it in a timely way.

One of the most recent reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlighted the fact that the government was late in tabling its public accounts. It didn't table them until December. Normally, in the countries of most of our allies and trading partners, that happens on a six-month timetable after the end of the fiscal year, so tabling them in December was very late. I think it is true, especially when the government is spending large sums of money, that accountability and transparency become that much more important. They do not become less important because we are spending more money; they become more important as we spend more money.

That is why I am proud that the NDP has been able to negotiate some reporting requirements around this. I look forward to trying to secure a similar reporting requirement for Bill C-8, which includes another $1.72 billion in spending authority for rapid tests.

That was not the only thing negotiated around the passage of this bill. We in the House all know and Canadians listening may well know that the government made a choice to claw back the CERB benefits from working seniors who were on the guaranteed income supplement.

We were talking about it as New Democrats before the last election. We talked about it during the election. We have talked about is since the election. The government finally, just as a result of public pressure, felt an obligation to say something about it in the fall economic statement. They said money would be coming, but then it seemed it would not come until May. Then we heard maybe June. Then we heard maybe July. As part of the negotiations around swift passage of this bill, earlier today we were able to secure a commitment from the government that those seniors who have had their GIS clawed back would be paid no later than April 19, and for some of those in the most desperate need, that help may flow as early as mid-March.

That is a real concrete benefit for Canadians who were hurting. I have talked to seniors who have already been evicted from their homes. We have heard reports of seniors who have taken their lives because they had no sense of hope when they heard it would be so long until the GIS clawback was rectified. We have heard stories of seniors who have had to pass up on medication or are going hungry. This demanded swift action. It was something we were hoping to see the government do around Bill C-2, and we finally got it done.

To get Canadians access to more rapid tests and to get some of our most financially vulnerable seniors the help they need in order to stay in their homes or to be rehoused after being evicted all in one go I would say is a good day's work for a parliamentarian, and I am proud of that work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge everything my colleague said. Yes, we need rapid tests. That being said, the Senate is not sitting until next week.

We are not talking about having endless debates and studies, but simply giving ourselves the rest of the week to discuss and ensure that we are able to propose amendments that would guarantee that the money goes to the tests and the right companies, not to the Liberals' friends.

Why this rush to pass this bill on a Monday instead of on Thursday or Friday, or not at all according to the studies—

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

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is because there are other bills to be studied. If I am not mistaken, Bill C-12 addresses the guaranteed income supplement and would ensure that what happened with the GIS and CERB will not be repeated in the next taxation year. There are other priorities.

In my opinion, Bill C‑10 is a fairly simple bill, and we have already approved much large expenditures by unanimous consent in the past. The NDP has received assurances that there will be a proper reporting of the expenditures under Bill C‑10. That is enough for me, and we can move on to other priorities.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I would add to the exchange between the member of the Bloc and my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona is that the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act today, and that is going to require it coming before Parliament. That may take up the remainder of this week. It is quite time sensitive that we get this bill passed.

My colleague was very good at underlining just how important these are to many working families. I wonder if he would expand on the fact that while we all are very much wishing for this pandemic to be done with us, it is not finished. We are done with it, but it is certainly not done with us. What kind of peace of mind do rapid tests offer to people who often find themselves in high risk situations, having to make those calls every day, especially if they are living with vulnerable people in their households?

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

Mr. Speaker, at this point in the pandemic it would be hard to find people in the country who have not had the experience of doing a rapid test or knowing someone who has done a rapid test, and who have not felt some anxiety about visiting family members who they feel might be vulnerable.

These two things go well together. If people have access to rapid tests, then one of the things people could try to do to give themselves a little peace of mind and to give their friends or family members they might be visiting, who might be immunocompromised or otherwise vulnerable to COVID, that little extra peace of mind, and to feel that they are doing their part, is to take that test.

While it is true that if people are asymptomatic, those tests can certainly give false negatives but in terms of whether people ultimately have COVID or not, they do say they are pretty accurate for predicting whether people are contagious for a period of several hours after taking the test. That is where a lot of peace of mind comes from.

That peace of mind can only be accessed if there is access to a test. That is why it is important to authorize these funds and to be able to get those tests out the door, so that they can find their way into the hands of Canadians.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this House we listen to partisanship constantly. We listen to people yelling at each other, calling each other names and ignoring the issue on the table just in order to be partisan. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway made me proud tonight. He was non-partisan. He was clear. He talked about the science. He talked about the facts. He smoked out all of the partisanship and the hypocrisy.

This is an important bill, yet we hear everyone going off on tangents about everything other than a very simple bill. COVID-19, omicron or whatever form it is going to mutate into, kills people. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have died as a result of it. They were preventable deaths. We are talking about dealing with preventing death here. We are not talking about transfer payments and whatever else people want to do as a red herring. Let us just talk about our having the power to help to save lives. Let us talk about how we do it. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

When there is a pandemic, there are some very simple things to do. The first thing we have to do is find out what the vector is, what is causing it, and how it is spread. In this case, we thought originally it was spread by droplet infection. We now know it is spread by aerosol. How it is spread is important for us to understand. The second thing we need to find out is how we get vaccines against it and how, if we can, prevent people from getting it. Containing the spread is an important part of it.

The federal government has been giving out rapid tests since October 2020, for a year and five months. I am not being partisan about this. It bothers me that my Province of British Columbia was given seven million free tests by the Government of Canada and no one knows how the tests are being handed out. British Columbians keep writing to me saying they cannot get a test to save their life and do not know where to find them. At the same time, I have grandchildren in Ontario who can get rapid tests at school and bring them home.

Let us talk about saving lives here. Let us talk about dealing with a virus that does not really care what political party we belong to or what province we live in. It does not give a hoot about the Constitution. It does not care about legislation or anything. It is a virus and it knows how to do only one thing, and that is to spread and make people ill. The longer it stays with us, the more we are going to see it change, evolve and mutate into different forms. Right now, we all think of omicron, that it is easy to pick up. Omicron is actually very mild.

On the other hand, we need to talk about why we should have rapid tests and what the importance of rapid tests is in this. We have identified the vector. We have decided how it is spread. We have decided we are going to contain it. We have vaccines. We have treatments ready. The question then is what the rapid tests are going to do. We know the tests are not always very reliable, but the important thing that rapid tests do is the third part of public health protocol, and that is surveillance and tracking.

If we can find out where omicron is, or B.1 or whatever the new strain is, we are able to do not only a widespread, scattered approach, but we can look at that little town, little village, little space or little part of the city where there are more positive tests. Surveillance is a part of public health. It is a part of looking at a pandemic. They get surveillance and track it. The federal government put in a tracking mechanism, an app. Most provinces ignored it and the app became useless because nobody was tracking. Surveillance went by the board. Surveillance is key to knowing where to expend the resources and where they are going to find the virust spread so as to be able to curb it. It is scientific. It is a simple, basic method.

Therefore, it is important that we get rapid tests out to everyone as soon as possible. Yes, it helps people if they want to visit their grandma to know that they are okay and that they will not give her omicron. That is all very good, but the bottom line is it is important for surveillance and for tracking. Because we did not have an app that everybody used, there was a problem.

Again, I want to say that I am certainly not being partisan tonight. I am talking about Ontario having done one good thing. My daughter-in-law who lives in Ontario went out one day with her friends. They went for dinner. It was the friend's birthday, and there were three of them. When she got home, she got a message from the app in Ontario, the same federal app we are talking about, which told her she may have been in a room with and in touch with people with omicron.

The next day she went for her proper PCR test, not a rapid test. She went out. She isolated herself. She was able to take those kind of steps. This is what these protocols are for. This is why it does not matter how it is spread. It does not matter what is happening in the pandemic. These are some basic steps in epidemiology and in looking at pandemics, which began at the beginning of the 20th century when we first discovered public health, and we began to understand how to track things.

This is not a silly thing. There is nothing to study. This is real. The facts are there. This is the science that has been around since the early part of the 20th century, and we need to use it. We need to care about how we can prevent lives being lost. I am a physician. The idea that people could die from a preventable death bothers me to no end. It really does. I lose sleep at night over this. It really bothers me because it is in our power to do the right thing.

In my province of British Columbia, 92% of people have had a vaccination, so we can see that people do care. They want to do the right thing, yet we have people in the Conservative Party talking about how we should have no more vaccine mandates and no more whatever. Obviously, there is no understanding of what science is about, what public health is about, when it started, how it started, how it is tracked or how it works.

The most important thing we should be worried about is how to stop the spread and how to save lives. I support this bill. I would love for us to stop talking about everything else and just focus. Let us get this thing passed. Let us get the rapid tests going.

Hundreds of thousands are going to be done. Yes, it is money spent, but that money is important, because saving lives has got to be the number one priority for any government, anywhere, anyhow. Any party that wants to be in government has got to think about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on the apparent NDP-Liberal coalition we have going on here and the vote we had earlier today on our opposition day motion, in which the NDP supported the Liberal government and voted against that motion.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question. However, that is an example of what I was talking about and what the hon. member from Vancouver Kingsway was talking about.

Once again, it is the politics of the thing. It is, “Oh, look at the coalition. Look at how they are getting into bed.” This is science. Everywhere one goes, regardless of their political party, if they understand the science, they will agree with this. This is not about getting into bed with someone and forming coalitions. That is the kind of low-grade partisanship that actually puts people's lives on the line because it is more important to be political than to get the right things done.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because it is very late in the day today, February 14, but I am somewhat shocked.

I am especially shocked by my colleague, who is so knowledgeable. She said that they want to save lives and prevent senseless deaths, so why did people on my street have to go through triaging because health care services were not available? It is because there was not enough money, not because they did not have access to a test. I agree with having tests.

I am just trying to understand. We heard several times that partisanship is at play, but I believe that the Bloc Québécois should not be included in that because it is the only party that is not looking for power. We are here to protect Quebec's interests, which means we will support what is good for Quebec.

I would like to hear from my colleague, who is the expert. It sounded like she was saying that with respect to the health transfers, the triaging and deaths that occurred were not part of it.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is hilarious. In the first instance, the member spoke tonight about provincial jurisdictions. The provinces are being given these rapid tests. They are being shipped to them. We are actually seeking in this bill to get them shipped directly to provinces, so provinces can distribute them.

If the hon. member cannot find them in her province, she is going to have to ask her provincial government why they have received so many hundreds of millions of tests they they have not distributed yet. That has to be my answer. We cannot have it both ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to the member's speech tonight. The fact that she is a physician gives her an opportunity to explain a number of things to Canadians. Of course, saving lives is key to any physician and I really appreciate her passion for that. Could she explain something?

She said omicron was less infectious, but spread more. I wonder how the member would answer this. The nature of a virus is that it wants to survive. What is the member's understanding of the role of a virus that initially comes out very strong, then eventually becomes far more contagious but less dangerous? That is what has happened here.

I would like the member to speak to the fact that emergency vaccines are required only when it is determined that there are no available early treatments to prevent people from getting to the place where they are in ICUs and on ventilators. What is her view of the importance of recognizing how a virus mutates?

I would also like to hear her view on natural immunity. Before we provide vaccines, should that not be determined and find out how many people have very strong T cells and natural immunity capability?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer that question. Viruses are unpredictable, as we have seen with this virus. Omicron wants to get to as many people as it can to spread itself. Its spread has been decreasing with vaccinations. Fewer and fewer people are getting it. Its spread therefore has become more mild mostly because a lot of people are already vaccinated and have had booster shots. Therefore, they have some degree of immunity and are not getting as sick as they could have. That is the first reason.

Omicron right now is spreading rapidly, but is milder in certain people, but we do not know whether that is only because of vaccines or whether it is the next iteration, B.1. I do not know whether that comes up. Maybe it is far more lethal and it has a lot of problems. We do not understand that, because we do not know and we cannot predict that until it happens.

The other thing is are we going to wait to see if people have natural immunity? This is a case of saying I am going to roll the dice and if someone does not have natural immunity and they happen to die from omicron because they are 80 or older and they die from it, then that was a mistake. I thought that person had immunity. The bottom line is to give—

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

That is a good use of a vaccine.

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

Order. I know it is late at night. I know we have not been using Zoom for very long. Let us just make sure that we allow the member to answer. Then we will go back and forth as we normally do.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the microphone.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to finish that thought. Vaccines do convey natural immunity. Where do people think immunity comes from? Someone gets antibodies in response to an antigen. In this case the RNA of the virus will actually cause someone to develop antibodies. Our bodies develop antibodies.

The point is there are many people who are immunocompromised. There are many people with chronic illnesses who do not how susceptible they will be. I, as a physician, am not prepared to roll the dice on whether someone has natural immunity or not. The bottom line is to try and make as many people as immune as we possibly can so we can decrease the damage done.

We still do not even know the long-term effects for people who are getting omicron. We may be getting milder forms. We do not know what is happening long term. A lot of countries are now saying there may be chronic long-term problems.

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

I hate to cut things off, but we have to get a few more questions in before the time runs out.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not often we get to go twice in a debate like this, so I am appreciative of that.

The hon. member talked about the science of this. The motion we put forward last week called for the government to put forward a plan, give us some benchmarks or give us some timelines, and show us the science of when we will break out of this pandemic and when we will be able to lift the mandates.

Would the hon. member like to tell us, according to her plan, how many people would have to be vaccinated in her ideal world for the mandates to be dropped and for life to return to some semblance of normal?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to know what the plan of action is. A plan of action is not one that tries to second-guess a virus, which we cannot do because it has behaved very erratically, and viruses do that.

The bottom line is to ask how many people we can prevent from getting this virus. We need to look at vaccination as a first step in a plan; the plan is vaccination. The next plan is to try to isolate people wherever possible so the spread is contained. Those are some of the things we plan.

We do not plan as a partisan issue. We plan according to what we must do when we have a pandemic, whether it be the flu at the beginning of the 20th century or the plague. A plan is based on what we know, on the science and what has been shown over generations about how to deal with viruses or bacteria, if they happen to be the source of the pandemic. That is a plan. It is a scientific plan. It is not a plan that says we are going to second-guess and say that on March 4, 2022, the virus is going to go away. One cannot tell people that because we do not know that.

Something we have seen with this virus is that it has fooled us over and over again. A plan, for me, is to follow the protocols that every good public health professional has understood from the beginning of the 20th century. What do we do, how do we do it and how do we prevent people from dying?

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

Mr. Speaker, two weeks to flatten the curve, do we remember that being said? Two weeks to flatten the curve is what we all signed up for around here back in the spring of 2020, two years ago.

Here we are two years later and we still do not have a plan for how we are going to pull out of this pandemic. We put forward a motion last week calling on the government to provide us with a plan. We left it fairly wide open. We asked for a plan for how we would end the mandates and return to some semblance of normal.

The Liberals joined with their coalition partners, the NDP, and voted that motion down, so here we are without a plan for how to end the pandemic. We heard about the vaccines and we called for rapid tests, which is what we are talking about tonight, but here we are without a plan.

The Liberals could have voted for our motion earlier today and could have put forward a plan. We gave them a month to come up with a plan. They have essentially had two years to come up with a plan, and one of the major frustrations from people across the country is that there does not seem to be a plan. We seem to be flying by the seat of our pants.

There is also no humility in this to say that the government actually does not know. That would be an acceptable plan to give, but the government keeps saying it is following the science. Show us the science. Use the science and build a plan. Give us a percentage. We have heard things like “when 70% of the population is vaccinated”, “when 80% of the population is vaccinated” or “when 90% of the population is vaccinated”. Those are all nice targets, but that is kind of like shooting a hole in the target and then painting the bull's eye around the hole we just shot.

If we do not know what the target is, it is pretty hard to have a plan. It is hard to have an idea. As well, the goalposts keep changing. The target keeps changing. The bullet hole is there and we have painted the bull's eye around it. That is essentially where we are at with this whole COVID-19 pandemic.

It has been two years. We have seen jurisdictions around the world removing their vaccination mandates, removing their travel restrictions and opening up their sports arenas. They are watching hockey again and having a good time. Here we are in Canada behind plexiglass and masks and all of these things while other parts of the world are—

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member has been speaking for three minutes and has not talked about rapid tests once yet. This is a debate about rapid tests. I urge the Speaker to try to get him back into the lane.

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

I thank the minister for that, but the member did mention rapid tests at least once in his speech so far. We have given lots of leeway in our debate tonight to all sides. I will make sure the member keeps to the bill at hand, and I am sure this nudging will keep him there.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have given the government the opportunity with this motion last week for a dramatic out, a way to reduce the pressure in this country around the two years that this country has been under moving goalposts and shooting first and then drawing a bullseye on the target after the fact. Here we are today asking the government for a target before we get to the plate.

Today, the bill before us is very straightforward. It talks about getting rapid tests. We have been asking for rapid tests for over two years. We were asking for rapid tests before there was a decent vaccine on the market, before we had approvals for the vaccine. Why? There were cutting-edge Canadian companies that were showing up in this place and telling us they had a rapid test that we could use if only they could get Health Canada's approval.

I remember writing a letter asking the health minister to expedite the testing of these rapid tests so that we could use them. Why? It was so that we could maintain our border. One of the first things that we learned in a pandemic was to shut the borders and try to keep the pandemic out. What did the government do? It called shutting the border racist. Had we had rapid tests at the border, we could have tested people and significantly reduced the effects of people coming from overseas and bringing COVID-19 here. We would have been able to quarantine the sick rather than quarantining everybody. Quarantining is for the sick. It is not for the healthy.

That was one of the major frustrations that we saw, these ham-fisted practices that went on, putting people in these “rape hotels” across the country after they came in to ensure that they were not spreading COVID to other people, in worse conditions than many of the prisons in this country, worse food for sure. Forgive me when I am not willing to grant the Liberals a lot of leeway on this bill around rapid tests when we have been calling for them for a very long time.