Debates of Feb. 14th, 2022

Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would hate to follow in the member opposite's footsteps, but I certainly wonder what the relevance to the debate at hand is for what he is bringing forward. Specifically, if he is aware that the Senate is not even sitting this week in terms of the delay—

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

We are getting into the throes of debate once again.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue and stick to what he can on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be addressing the comments that have been made during this debate, but unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who justified his comments by the fact that—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is supposed to be speaking to this particular motion. He has called out different members for talking about something other than what he thinks they should be talking about. In this case, all he can talk about is what we Conservatives are saying.

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

We are starting to get into debate. I know we enjoy cutting people off here sometimes, but I am just hoping that we can get back to the debate at hand.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker who rose on a point of order clearly did not hear your ruling when you said that this was getting into debate.

I am going to address the comments I have heard during this debate but, unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who somehow justified his 10-minute speech that had nothing to do with this based on what he had heard other people say, I am not going to attempt to suggest that two wrongs make a right. What I have heard is a number of Conservatives talk about issues that are everything to do with what is going on right now, but not about this particular bill.

We heard the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan say, “We need to do our jobs” and that we need to be able to publicly scrutinize this bill, yet he did not even do that in his own comments. He did not try to scrutinize the bill. He did not bring up the bill once. I even rose on a point of order to ask him to talk about the bill and he would not do that, so I find that very perplexing.

The reason this is important to this debate is that the debate we are having right now is for a programming motion that relates to what happens to this bill that is before us regarding the rapid tests we are looking to acquire. It is extremely important. To me, at least, it validates the fact that this is important and there is very little argument coming from the other side as to why it is not important to move forward with this right now. The important part about this is that I have not heard anything about why we cannot move forward with this.

I know there are some Conservative colleagues out there who very much support rapid tests and were calling on the government to get them weeks ago. Now, suddenly, there seems to be this opposition and an attempt to slow down the actual process.

On January 5, the member for Durham, who colleagues may remember as the former leader of the opposition, said, “Before Christmas, it was like the 'Hunger Games' trying to get a rapid test in Canada”. That was just at the beginning of January when he said that. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable tweeted on January 12, “See! They have failed. Again. Lockdowns and restrictions are being normalized as a public health tools because of [the Prime Minister's] failure to secure rapid tests—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am enjoying this trip down memory lane. In fact, the member is correct that we did call for rapid tests two years ago, but I do not see the relevance here.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is the third point of order on this and I just want to remind members that there is some flexibility during the discussions before the House. On this particular bill, there is that flexibility. I will remind the member to make sure his speech speaks to the bill that is before the House, but we have to be mindful there is quite a bit of flexibility on the issues that surround this bill.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, if you review Hansard, I am sure you will find that I am one of the few people who is talking about rapid tests during today's debate. I do appreciate the points of order though, because it gives me an opportunity to collect my thoughts.

On January 5, the member for Thornhill, the Conservative Party transport critic, sent a letter to the Minister of Transport asking that he consider rapid tests as an alternative to the new requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated. Here we have time after time Conservatives calling on the government to get more rapid tests and to do it as quickly as possible, yet today they seem to be in a position where they want to push back against that, delay it and slow it down as much as they can. The member for Calgary Nose Hill is quoted as saying, “We need immediate action to deploy widespread rapid testing for all Canadians”.

Conservative after Conservative, at some point in the last month or two, have been calling on this government to do this and to do it as expeditiously as possible. However, now we get to the point where we have a piece of legislation before us to authorize the government to make those purchases and in turn supply the rapid tests to provinces and territories, yet there is opposition from the Conservatives about doing this. I cannot help but wonder why. We have heard so many times about not politicizing things and not politicizing the debate on this. The Conservatives have said that repeatedly today, but they seem to be doing exactly that, which I find very confusing.

I want to address a point that has been brought up by a couple of Conservatives. The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon brought this up. He asked why there are two bills and why this was not put into the budget implementation act. I find it ironic, I must admit, that the Conservatives are now asking why we did not create an omnibus bill when they usually complain that we are doing that and we should not be doing that. There is actually a really simple answer for that. The answer is that the first allocation of funding in the budget implementation act was a result of the fall economic statement. In the fall economic statement, it was determined x number of dollars was required for rapid tests.

When the statement was delivered and when the bill was introduced and tabled, we had not yet become aware of the omicron variant and what that was going to expose the world to in terms of a new higher demand for rapid tests. Once that comes along and we discover we need more tests and the demand will increase, the default is that we need a new piece of legislation to get more rapid tests into the hands of the Canadian government so they can be deployed to the provinces and territories.

There is a very simple explanation for why this has been done in two different bills. The Conservatives want to paint it as some kind of sinister attempt to fool somebody or to try to trick people by putting this into two bills for some reason. This bill is very straightforward and it is very simple. There are two clauses. It does not even consist of more than three sentences in total. There is one sentence in the introduction, one sentence in the first clause and one sentence in the second clause. The first clause authorizes the Minister of Health to make the payments necessary to secure rapid tests. The second clause allows the minister to deploy those rapid tests to provinces and territories throughout Canada so that provinces can work to make sure that the supplies are available in terms of rapid testing.

I cannot help but wonder why there is this cry from across the way about division and political opportunity when we are literally talking about the simplest bill I have ever seen before the House in the six years I have been here. It is very straightforward. It could easily pass quickly and could be moved along so we can get those resources into the hands of provinces and territories.

However, we are still hearing the rhetoric from across the way that we have not delivered. This government has delivered millions of rapid tests and put them in the hands of the provinces and the authorities that distribute them. Wherever we can, we have made sure that there were opportunities for those who needed rapid tests to have them, paid for by federal dollars, essentially being paid for by all Canadians, which is what is so critically important when it comes to anything related to our health care.

This is a bill that specifically asks for that and we are being accused of trying to somehow sow division and a create political opportunity when this is the simplest bill and the easiest piece of legislation to understand. It really comes down, in my opinion, to whether or not Conservatives want them, yes or no. I have heard mixed messages from across the way all day long. The leader in the House for the Conservatives said, “Throughout the pandemic, the Conservative Party has consistently and persistently called for greater access to rapid tests for all Canadians.” He even went as far as to say that he supports rapid tests and this bill.

However, then I heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester question whether or not rapid tests are even effective and scientifically proven. He said, “I find it very unusual that it has now become an absolute urgency...without any consideration at all”. Let us not forget that this is from the same party that days and weeks ago called on the government to have these rapid tests yesterday. He then went on to say that this is without any consideration for “the changes in science we have seen in this dynamic situation.” He even said that there is a need “to have a look at the science”. The member for Cumberland—Colchester actually said that. One of the Conservative Party's senior representatives on the health committee said that. He is questioning the science of rapid tests.

This leaves me to wonder where the Conservatives are on this. Do they believe in rapid tests and think they effectively work or do they question the science, demanding that we look at the science of it, as though somehow the health committee of Parliament is going to better understand the science than the people who have authorized the use of these tests in Canada? I find it absolutely remarkable.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon said in his speech today, “in my province”, which is British Columbia, “the public health officer is telling us that, for the majority of the population, they are not needed anymore”. We have the Conservative House leader saying we need them, want them and support them, but Conservatives just do not like the way the government is doing it. We have the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan saying the exact same thing, but he never brought up in his speech the need for them or questioned this bill whatsoever. We have the member for Cumberland—Colchester questioning the science and validity of rapid tests, and then we have the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon saying they are not even needed anymore.

I am sorry if I am a little confused as to where the Conservative Party is coming from on this and if my default reaction, as usual, unfortunately, is to assume that its members are trying to play games, but their actions and words in the House only lead one to conclude this. I have been watching. I have been here for the entire debate and there is no absolutely no consistency. It is as though Conservatives are trying filibuster this and make it last as long as it can. That is not going to benefit Canadians, it is not going to benefit the people who need these rapid tests and it is not going to be a good partner with the provinces and territories that deliver these supplies across the country. At the end of the day, all it is going to do is slow this government down so that the opposition can say that we did not get them quick enough. I am sorry I end up at this place where I assume this, but it is based on everything that I have heard here today.

I appreciate the time to contribute to this debate today. I think these tests are absolutely critical to making sure we have the supplies in the hands of the provinces and territories, the health agencies they work with, and the various partners that will help distribute them.

As members will recall, a short six to eight weeks ago we did not know we would need this many tests. Suddenly we do, and we do not know what we are going to need six, seven or eight weeks from now. We need to make sure that we have these rapid tests in hand so if there is another variant like omicron, or something similar, we are prepared to make sure we can deploy rapid tests to the various organizations that will help us distribute them throughout the country.

I am very supportive of moving forward with the motion before us right now, which is to program the bill so that it properly gets to a vote later on this evening and so that we can pass it here, allow it to take its course and be passed by the Senate. Then we can get to a point where we can purchase these rapid tests and make sure they get into the hands of Canadians throughout the country.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague for Kingston and the Islands. He talked a lot about what our members said, and that is fine. Those quotes are debatable if put into context.

I want to know what he thinks of the following quotes:

I can't help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government have changed drastically since the last election campaign. It went from a more positive approach to one that stigmatizes and divides people.... It's time to stop dividing Canadians and pitting one part of the population against another.

Those declarations were made a week ago by the Liberal MP for Louis-Hébert. What do you think of that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask him what he thinks of it. I am not going to tell the member what I think of it.

Again, I want to remind the member to address the questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I have certainly always enjoyed our discussions.

I just spoke for 15 minutes on this bill. The first question I got was not even about the bill, but about what another member of Parliament said, who is completely entitled to his opinion. It differs from mine, but it is what it is.

The point is that this bill today is about rapid tests, and whether or not we should expend the money in order to buy rapid tests so we can use them throughout the country. Just as with every speech before this, it is regrettable that the first question to come from the Conservatives to me is again about an issue that has nothing to do with the bill.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to make my colleague happy and speak about the bill.

I am going to tell him that we want these rapid tests and that we support this bill.

Madam Speaker, a member's mic is on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind members to turn off their mics when they are not speaking.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé may continue.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that I was going to make the member happy by talking about the bill and the rapid tests, which we urgently want.

I am also going to remind him that this is a federal initiative in health care and that the big problem during the pandemic was a lack of resources invested in our health care systems. In fact, that is why many of the restrictions had to be put in place.

I would like to know what he thinks. Does my colleague also feel uncomfortable with his government's position, which is to stubbornly refuse to make health transfers to the provinces and Quebec? Those transfers are truly needed. The Liberals should stop bragging about spending $8 out of $10 of the assistance provided. There was nothing extraordinary about that. Your government has the money, but you do not have the responsibilities.

Will the member undertake to work from the inside to change this once and for all and to transfer the necessary resources to Quebec?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I also want to remind the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to address the Chair and not the government directly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, at least it is predictable that a bill dealing with spending money on something health-related will generate a question from the Bloc about health transfers. At least that is more predictable than what I am hearing from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

I will say, in an attempt to answer his question, that this government has been focused on a holistic approach from the beginning. The hon. member mentioned $8 out of $10 coming from the federal government. The federal government has looked at itself as the leader, in terms of working with our partners. We have never, throughout this entire process, said that we were just going to hand over money to the provinces and let them fight COVID on their own.

We are going to do this together, and we are going to do it in a way that allows us the purchasing power we can get by working together, and that allows us the opportunity to properly make sure that every Canadian can be treated equally.

Can members imagine if we had all of the different provinces and territories fighting for rapid tests and fighting for vaccines? No. The approach has always been that we work together.

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

Madam Speaker, I always find that my hon. colleague is one of the most eloquent in the House, in his delivery style.

Of course, he highlighted what we have heard today in the debate, which is some of the inconsistency from the opposition party in terms of their views. I am wondering if he might be able to opine on that. Furthermore, what I have noticed in the House is that there seems to be a desire to think we can simply have a cut-off date and time, and say the pandemic is over.

My impression of this is that it is going to be a gradual reduction over time. I know that it is not completely within the contents of this bill, but the rapid tests are certainly going to be needed to keep people safe in the months and days ahead, as we start to wind down the measures.

Can the member opposite opine on that?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point. Nothing would please me more than not having to wear these masks any more. I am sick and tired of it. I hate it. I hate having to walk around all the time wearing them. I hate having to remember to take my mask out of my car when I go into a store. I want this pandemic to be over just as much as everybody else does.

However, the reality of the situation is that instead of tapping into the frustration that Canadians have, which is what the Conservatives are trying to do, we are trying to use better judgment, in terms of listening to the experts and listening to people like Dr. Kieran Moore in Ontario. He says that we have to keep wearing the masks at least until the end of March.

I wish that Doug Ford would have come out a couple of days ago and said that we did not have to wear masks anymore, as they have done in other provinces. However, at least Doug Ford is listening to a revered medical expert who knows what he is talking about. I am willing to accept the fact that I have to keep doing this because, at the end of the day, as much as it frustrates me to wear a mask, how hard is it, really?

We might not like it. It might be an inconvenience. It might be a slight irritant, but to do our part, all we have to do is wear a mask and observe some other health measures. That is pretty simple, at the end of the day.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have a long and inexplicable wait in getting access to rapid tests in this country. I am as sympathetic as anyone to the fact that there could be bureaucratic delays, but I do not understand why this bill is only coming to us now.

Does the hon. member have any light to cast on this?

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

Madam Speaker, to address the first point, I really hope that if we have learned one thing as a country through this, it is that we need to have the capacity in our own country to make the equipment during a pandemic. If we have learned one thing, it had better be that.

To her question or her comment about the bureaucracy and how long it has taken, what I can say about this bill and about all pieces of legislation that come through here is that it is constantly a fight to get a bill through the House. We are literally, right now, debating a motion about how to deal with this piece of legislation. There are only so many calendar days for the House to sit. There are pieces of legislation that are equally as important that have come down, and more that will be coming.

I am quite frustrated from time to time about how long things seem to be taking, but that is all the more reason to move quickly with a piece of legislation that contains two paragraphs. It is pretty easy to figure out if someone is for or against it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to indulge my hon. colleague from the other side to keep this on point. Probably the most baffling thing to me is why we even have a programming motion on this particular bill. We raised the issue of rapid testing and having rapid tests nearly two years ago, in April of 2020.

Today we are bringing this up, and there suddenly seems to be a mad panic for rapid tests. We have been calling for rapid tests for nearly two years. Something has not significantly changed, in my mind, that suddenly today, of all days, rapid tests should be the thing we talk about in this place.

There are a host of other things going on in this place that we perhaps should be talking about, but here we are talking about a programming motion on a bill to approve rapid tests.

Could the member please explain to me what the issue is with the rapid tests that makes this so important today?

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

Madam Speaker, if we stop talking about it and we sit down, as I am going to do in a few seconds, the debate can collapse, we can vote on it and we can move on to the next item. I do not think that is going to happen, because Conservatives have been getting up and talking about everything but this motion.

My response to my colleague across the way is this. Why do Conservative members not actually talk about the piece of legislation that is before us right now? If they do not want to talk about it, they should let it collapse so we can vote on it and move on.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, although I would have preferred to speak about other matters that are impacting Canadians, such as the runaway inflation that is affecting all Canadian families.

However, as a result of this government's complacency, today we have to discuss a motion seeking to muzzle MPs on a matter that concerns us all.

Let us look at the elements one by one, starting with rapid tests, since that is what we are debating. The government wants to purchase rapid tests, which it will distribute to the provinces, and they in turn will distribute them to Canadians. On this side of the House, we have been asking the government to obtain an adequate supply of rapid tests for almost two years.

If I could make a joke, I recollect very well my colleague for Kingston and the Islands, who quotes a lot of members on this side, talking about rapid tests a few weeks ago. It is sad to me that he has not quoted me, because I have talked about rapid tests for the last 18 months. I would have welcomed a quote from 18 months ago talking about rapid tests, because everybody on this side supports rapid tests. We were the first to ask the government to procure rapid tests.

We must have these rapid tests because they are one of the tools that give Canadians a little more freedom and hope for a return to a more normal life, living with the effects of COVID-19 every day.

Dr. Tam recently said that it may be time to start re-evaluating the health guidelines imposed on us, 75% to 80% of which fall within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. I will come back to that later.

Rapid tests, along with vaccines, mask wearing, regular handwashing and physical distancing when in contact with someone for more than 15 minutes, are some of the measures that will help us get through the pandemic. For months now, almost two years, in fact, we on this side of the House have been in favour of the government purchasing rapid tests for Canadians.

We are talking here about buying 450 million rapid tests at a cost of $2.5 billion, which is a tad more than the parliamentary paper budget. This government has been in power since 2015, for six and a half years, and it promised to run just three small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019. It ultimately scrapped that plan for sound management of public funds.

We will not sign a blank cheque for this government to buy tests. We will not stand by as though all is well and we trust the government to spend $2.5 billion. We have a duty as parliamentarians to be thorough. We have a duty to ensure that the money that Canadian taxpayers send to the federal government is spent appropriately and correctly for the common good.

Over the past six and a half years that this government has been in power, it has proven itself to have no regard for controlling spending. We are in favour of buying rapid tests and supplying them to the provinces so that they can get to Canadians. We do, however, have a job to do.

That is why, although we agree with buying rapid tests and getting them to Canadians, we have some serious concerns that need to be considered. We cannot abide a gag order on a $2.5‑billion purchase. I remind members that the proposed measures apply to purchases dating back to January 1, yet the government is claiming that these measures need to be adopted urgently.

Let us also remember that this is our third week since the House came back. Why wait until week three to invoke closure when they could have done it some other time? As the House leader of the official opposition said, he spoke with his counterparts from the governing party and the other opposition parties in hopes of finding a way to debate this bill properly in the House, send it to committee to give experts their say, and then come back to the House and wrap it up by Friday, all by the book.

If Bill C‑10 is debated today, if the closure motion is adopted and we go through the usual steps, we will end up voting on the bill at third reading around 2 a.m., which will demonstrate the urgency of the situation. However, nothing will actually happen at two in the morning because, for this bill to become law, it has to be debated and passed in the Senate. Now, the Senate is not going to be sitting at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, nor is it sitting on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. It is not sitting until next Monday.

That being the case, why the big rush? They say we have to pass this bill immediately, today, in the middle of the night because it is urgent and necessary, but nothing will actually change for another six days because the Senate will not be able to go ahead right away. That is proof, should anyone need proof, of the government's incompetence. It is once again turning a situation that could have been handled by the book with a proper debate into a crisis.

Speaking of going by the book, I forgot to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, which I am sure will be fascinating.

In short, yes to rapid tests, and no to closure.

Unfortunately, the government has a history of being perpetually late, as we are currently seeing with the procurement of rapid tests. Almost two years ago, in March 2020, when COVID-19 hit the entire world, with everyone aghast, wondering what was going to happen, and the entire planet in turmoil, our globalist Prime Minister was debating whether to close the borders and wondering how dangerous the virus was. It took the government 10 days to do what it should have done long before, which was to close the borders. It is not that we do not like foreign countries—we actually love them. All immigrants are welcome; I am living proof, being the son of immigrants.

However, in a global health emergency, it is important to make the right decisions. Do I need to remind the House that the mayor of Montreal took it upon herself to send her own city’s police officers to Dorval’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to do the job that the RCMP could not because this government did not want them to do it? That was totally irresponsible.

In addition to the delays at the border, there were also delays in vaccine procurement. Let us not forget the time when the government put all its eggs in the CanSino basket. Unfortunately, CanSino announced in July 2020 that it would not do business with Canada. It was too bad, because we ended up being four months late securing contracts with the Pfizers and Modernas of the world.

Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister put on a big dog-and-pony show when he wanted to suggest that everything was A-okay, even though the government had only a few tens of thousands of vaccine doses. Once again, in typical Liberal fashion, where everything is done for optics rather than substance, another problem arose. There was a 10-day gap in January and February 2021, when there were no vaccines available in Canada.

We have seen one delay after another, the most recent one involving rapid tests. We are disappointed, but should we be surprised that the government has unfortunately decided to put its own partisan political interests ahead of public health interests?

Let us not fool ourselves. I like political debate and good old partisan bickering, but not on matters of public health. The Prime Minister's primary, sacred duty is to unite Canadians on an issue as dangerous, perilous and fragile as this one. He did not do that.

Motivated by partisan politics, this Prime Minister decided to call an election on the public service mandate, which he did against the advice of the top public servant, who was responsible for hiring. It is not for nothing that we saw the member for Louis-Hébert, who was elected for saying certain things, now saying exactly the opposite, namely that he is sad to see his government engaging in polarization, demonization and partisan political attacks on an issue that should in fact unite us all.

That is why we want to say yes to accessing to rapid tests, but no to closure, which prevents us from holding a full debate on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech this afternoon. I especially want to thank him for having the courage to tweet about the blockade and about how important it is for all parliamentarians to work together to end it.

I am not the government House leader, but I would like to ask my colleague a question about the urgency of this motion.

The Prime Minister has announced emergency measures, and these measures need to be debated in the House this week.

Perhaps the government wants to pass this measure now in order to make room for debate on emergency measures at the next sitting.

Does my colleague support the government's decision to bring in the emergency measures?