Debates of March 24th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Federal Vaccine Mandates

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for her passionate speech today, and for always standing up for people who are vulnerable and for people who need a voice in this space. She is always there for them.

Today, I would like to respond a little to the notion that our job in the House might be to do what is always popular. I think we have an obligation to do what is prudent and to do what is responsible. We were elected to make decisions based on good facts, evidence and science, and we have done our best over the course of the last two years. Obviously, in retrospect, people make mistakes, but hindsight is always 20/20.

I would ask my hon. colleague this. In looking across the country at various jurisdictions, who are we here to protect?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I also feel that we have, as a Parliament, tried to work together for the betterment of Canada and for Canadians.

It is not always easy decisions that parliamentarians are asked to make. Our constituents did not send us here to have the honour of representing them in this place to do cheerleading for them or to do the popular things. We are here to make the difficult decisions, and there are things that we could have done much better. A perfect example of that is the Canadian access to medicines regime, CAMR, which I talked about earlier. We could put those medicines, those therapeutics and vaccination medicines on that list, but we have not done that yet. The Canadian government has the opportunity and could do it today. That would be one way that we could work together.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

In debates about the pandemic, it has often been said that the challenge for public health policy has been to ensure that people are willing to comply throughout the pandemic.

Does my colleague not think that if the government came up with a plan to ease these restrictions, this would provide some degree of predictability and encourage compliance?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that a plan is very important. Canadians deserve to have answers and they deserve to get information, but in my mind what that might look like is a plan to actually review the mandates: to look at them and see which ones can be lifted and at what point. To have that research into that piece is really important. However, it cannot be a decision that is based on what the member wants or what I want, but rather on what scientists and medical professionals tell us.

I would very quickly add that it is very important that our health care system is strengthened, which is another thing that I think all of us in the House should be fighting for.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the third year of this pandemic, Canadians are feeling exhausted, frustrated and anxious about the future. Instead of divisive political pandering, they deserve honest answers and responsible leadership from their elected officials.

Far from feeling this pandemic is over, Canadians are deeply concerned about what is coming next. People are worried about the emergence of new variants and the potential that COVID-19 will be circulating for years to come. However, after two years and many flawed and changing public health measures, New Democrats believe that Canada is due for a re-evaluation of our public health strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why New Democrats are taking a responsible and science-based approach, calling for a review of all federal public health measures that is transparent, data-driven and informed by the advice of public health experts.

New Democrats believe the prompt completion of this review is in the public interest and should proceed without political interference. That is why, last week, we wrote to Canada's chief medical officer and requested that the Public Health Agency of Canada conduct a thorough review of every federal COVID-19 health policy based on data and science, with a goal of either confirming that we are on the right path or making changes if we are not. Unfortunately, the motion introduced by the Conservative opposition today is the opposite of this approach.

By calling for an immediate end to all federal vaccine mandates, the Conservative motion is premature and politicizes a decision that should be based on science. Wedge politics and polarization are not going to end this pandemic. Rather than reckless declarations from the floor of the House of Commons, New Democrats believe that we must take a cautious and informed approach to protect public health until the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

This motion before the House violates these principles and this approach in a number of ways. First, it is premature and a threat to public health. This motion assumes, incorrectly, that we are done with the pandemic. It assumes, without scientific basis, that we have entered the endemic phase. This is something no responsible science has declared. It ignores what is happening in countries around the world, especially those that have relaxed their public health measures too quickly.

Second, it is politically motivated. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have played partisan politics with the pandemic over the past two years. That has been irresponsible and dangerous. I can do no better than to quote a Liberal member of the government: the MP for Louis-Hébert. He stated:

I can’t help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve and during the last election campaign. From a positive and unifying approach, a decision was made to wedge, to divide and to stigmatize.

He added:

I fear that this politicization of the pandemic risks undermining the public’s trust in our public health institutions.

He was right. Politicians should not be deciding public health measures; health professionals should. Public health decisions should be based on data, evidence and science, and not on political considerations. This motion reflects the Conservative Party playing the very same game.

Third, it is precise yet overly broad. This motion calls for the immediate lifting of all vaccine mandates, yet there are very different mandates with different purposes and impacts. For example, there is a clear difference between requiring vaccination for a federal health professional who visits a remote indigenous community to treat vulnerable seniors with compromised immune systems and for an Ottawa bureaucrat who works from home, yet this motion makes no distinction whatsoever and would immediately remove both. There are different considerations when we consider passengers on an airplane sitting inches apart in a closed environment for many hours, than for those on a bus where people may be able to physically distance. Some mandate aspects might indeed be properly removed, yet it may be prudent to retain or perhaps alter others. This motion precludes that approach.

Fourth, it is factually incorrect and misleading. The motion erroneously claims that all provinces have lifted or have plans to lift their vaccine mandates. What is correct is that all provinces have lifted their proof of vaccination requirements for people attending certain social and recreational settings and events, except for British Columbia. The requirement will be lifted there on April 8. In British Columbia, mandatory vaccination policies remain in place for workers in health care, long-term care and public service. New Brunswick has dropped its COVID-19 vaccination mandate for most employees, except for those who work in health care and other vulnerable sectors. The Government of Nova Scotia has indicated that higher-risk areas in the front lines of health care and long-term care will still require COVID-19 vaccinations when the mandates in other sectors are lifted in the province.

When the motion claims that Canada has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, it is referring only to a two-shot vaccine series and ignores the third booster vaccination figures. While it is correct that the two-jab rates are in the 82% range, still leaving almost 20% without full vaccination, incidentally, that rate drops to less than half of Canadians, 46%, with booster shots. This motion misrepresents the vulnerability of Canadians and risks their health in doing so.

We know that vaccination continues to be the best course of action to protect Canadians from serious illness, hospitalization and death. According to Canada's chief public health officer:

...with the Omicron variant, having two doses—the protection against infection and further transmission goes really low. You really need a third dose to provide augmentation against transmission. All that should be taken into account as the federal government looks at the policies going forward.

In addition, we need to study the impact of infection-acquired immunity, transmission dynamics and the viability of future treatments.

We also know that this virus knows no borders and what happens elsewhere is certain to affect us in Canada, so let us look at the current state of COVID-19 cases globally. After a consistent decrease since the end of January, the number of new weekly COVID-19 cases globally has now increased for a second consecutive week, with a 7% increase reported from March 14 to March 20 as compared to the previous week. According to the World Health Organization, a combination of factors is causing the spike, including the highly transmissible omicron variant and its BA.2 subvariant, as well as the lifting of public health and social measures.

The emergence of the BA.2 subvariant has led to a steep rise of cases in the U.K., Germany, Finland, Switzerland and other European countries in recent weeks. Hong Kong is now reporting the world's highest death rates from COVID-19. China is also seeing major outbreaks in major cities, putting millions of people under lockdown and halting production in major international manufacturing centres, providing grave implications for supply chains. South Korea recently set a new daily record, with reported infections topping 600,000. Australia and New Zealand, which had previously held cases to low levels, have also seen spikes in recent weeks, as have Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Here in Canada, a spike in early surveillance signals across the country has experts worried we could be on the verge of another resurgence. While BA.2 does not appear to be associated with more severe illness in vaccinated populations, it is still capable of causing severe disease among people without prior immunity, which underscores the importance of getting up to date with COVID-19 vaccines, including a booster.

What do respected health experts say as opposed to Conservative politicians? The WHO director said this:

There are different scenarios for how the pandemic could play out, and how the acute phase could end—but it is dangerous to assume that Omicron will be the last variant, or that we are in the endgame.

On the contrary, globally the conditions are ideal for more variants to emerge.

Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease physician at Toronto General Hospital and member of Ontario's COVID-19 vaccine task force, said this:

Even though we're in a much better place now than we were one and two months ago, there's still a lot of COVID around and there's still a lot of people in hospital with COVID....

Sadly, this is not over yet.

Finally, Dr. Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of viral pathogenesis at the University of Manitoba and Canada research chair of emerging viruses, stated:

Watching what's going on in terms of case numbers in Europe, I think should be certainly a bit of a stark reminder that the virus has not disappeared....

BA.2 should, in my mind, kind of reinvigorate us to realize we're not through with this yet and in fact the virus can still change.

The NDP is fully committed to reviewing all federal vaccine mandates and restrictions, as I said earlier, so we would propose that we amend the motion in the following way.

I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “has lifted or” and substitute the following: “is planning to lift vaccine mandates, the House call on the Public Health Agency of Canada to conduct a comprehensive review of all federal vaccine mandates and restrictions based on the most recent data and best available evidence to determine whether such mandates should remain, be lifted or be altered and request that this review be tabled in the House within four weeks following the adoption of this motion.”

By accepting this amendment, we can put this decision in the hands of those it should be, those of scientists, based on data, based on evidence and for the protection and best health of Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we reject the amendment from the government member.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure it was not the intention of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to mislead the House by suggesting that the member for Vancouver Kingsway is a member of the government. That is obviously not true. I wonder if he might want to correct the record.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the member for that clarification.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of talk in the debate about science and how we need to follow the science. I just want to let people know that I am a chemical engineer. I did work in science and research, so I do have some understanding of the issue.

One of the facts that I want to talk about is how the 90% of people who are vaccinated in Canada can get and transmit COVID-19. We know this. The Prime Minister has had it. I have had it twice, and a lot of people in the House have had it. These 90% are able to go back and forth across the border easily and get on a plane and take their masks off while they are eating lunch, etc. However, the 10% who are not vaccinated can also get and transmit COVID, but they are not allowed to go anywhere. As the World Health Organization has pointed out, this is accomplishing nothing other than violating the charter rights of these individuals.

Would the member agree that this would be one measure we could drop today without any adverse impact?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a person interested in science, I am sure my hon. colleague is also interested in the accuracy of numbers. It is not 90% of Canadians who are vaccinated. It is 81.6%. Of course, as I pointed out in my speech, only 46% of Canadians have had their third booster, which, in my view, now ought to be considered required to be considered fully vaccinated.

We know, based on the science, that the impact of vaccinations wanes over time. After three, four or five months, we know that the efficacy of the vaccine, particularly the mRNA vaccines, can go down to very low numbers, so getting that third booster is incredibly important.

I would just say that federal policy should be to encourage people to be vaccinated and to do everything possible to ensure that all Canadians receive their third boosters. Relaxing and withdrawing mandates, in that respect, at this time, I think, is not only irresponsible but harmful to the health of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair. As you would know and no doubt attest, with regard to the province of Quebec, toward the end of November or beginning of December, no one would have anticipated that the province of Quebec would have been implementing a curfew in the month of January because of omicron.

I think it is really important that we do not lose sight of the fact that we cannot just wish the pandemic away. There is a responsibility. Things can change and, as we have seen with the omicron variant, they can change quite quickly and rapidly.

I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important that we listen to what health care experts have to say.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. There is really a number of fundamental flaws in this motion before the House today. Again, it assumes that politicians should be making public health policy. I personally do not agree with that. The Conservatives seem to think that should be the case.

Second of all, I believe that the decision should be data-driven and it should be accurate. Again, this motion, as I have pointed out, suffers from a number of inaccuracies, if not outright mistakes.

Finally, I would say that we have been through this before, where we get a temporary lull because of the public health measures and we get case counts coming down, so we prematurely move to relax public health measures. What have we seen? We see a flare-up again. I believe in the prudent, precautionary approach. I personally believe we should be moving very carefully and cautiously for the health of Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your excellent work.

I think that the pandemic has shown how fragile the health care system is in Quebec and across Canada. We know that seniors in long-term care homes were hard hit. It was hard to find people to work in those facilities. There was not enough money.

Now that my colleague is in power or on the government's side, I would like to know whether he will acquiesce as soon as possible to the call of Quebec and every province in Canada to increase health transfers from 22% to 35% so that the same tragedies we experienced in Quebec and across Canada will not happen again during a future pandemic.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Quebeckers are so grateful to the NDP for working co-operatively with the Liberals in the 1960s to bring them public, universal, comprehensive health care, which he clearly supports because he wants more money for it. That is because the NDP, unlike the Bloc Québécois, works constructively and positively in Parliament in order to deliver for Canadians, which is something they do not do.

Absolutely, the NDP is the party of health care. We are going to continue to fight for more federal contributions to get the federal government up to its 50% contribution to public health care in this country, as it should be.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in that chair. I am going to split my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

For two years, Canadians have been living with COVID-19 restrictions. That is two years of lockdowns, of not being able to visit loved ones and of not being able to travel. It is two years of isolation. While Canadians understood the need for various restrictions applied during the pandemic, despite the lack of consistency, despite the mixed messaging and despite the confusion, Canadians have done what was asked of them.

However, today what they can no longer be expected to live with is the indefinite nature of these restrictions and timelines and the lack of data. They are noticing that leaders across the country, 10 provinces, are following the evidence and advice from public health officials, evidence that supports ending the mandates.

Provincial leaders have lifted or have plans to lift mandates in their provinces. The only government in Canada that has no plan to lift restrictions is this one. I am sure that members opposite will argue that their compulsion for continued mandates is somehow justified by public health officials, but Canada's own top doctor says that the omicron variant is a game-changer and that it has forced us to rethink vaccine mandates.

Dr. Tam said that we are at a “very important juncture” and that COVID-19 policies need to shift from “an emphasis on requirements to recommendations.” That is the government's own adviser. The government's own adviser says that federal vaccine mandates are under review now, because the science tells us the COVID-19 vaccine, or at least the first two doses, offers very little protection against the transmission of the variant.

Advice once valued by the government is now suddenly ignored in an attempt to drive division and dehumanize those who do not agree, doubling down on a tactic that some members of their own caucus have called out.

The travel vaccination mandate has prevented approximately six million Canadians from travel within Canada and it prevents them from flying out of Canada. They cannot travel. They cannot visit family and friends. They cannot take international vacations or even fly across the country. They cannot live ordinary lives.

Canada is the only country in the developed world that bans citizens from air travel. If we couple that with Dr. Tam's statements of re-evaluating mandates, one can deduct that the rationale for a ban on air travel is no longer justified. However, the government seems to have a different view, one that suits its political narrative. It may see travel as a luxury, but what about work across federally regulated industries?

Let me tell members about one of those industries that is pleading for fairness, common sense and conditions in line with anywhere else in the world today, even with its competitors in our own airports: the air travel industry. The Minister of Transport's mandate for vaccinations, enforced through interim orders, was implemented swiftly across the industry. Despite this being a matter of health and safety, employers developed and implemented mandatory vaccination policies without consultation.

The majority of airline workers complied with their employer's policies, while other workers were placed on unpaid leave without benefits or access to medical benefits. The industry fully supported efforts to ensure the safety of workplaces, workers and the public, as did all members of the House.

It is important to point out that unvaccinated people are being disproportionately penalized. These workers were required to work during the pandemic. In many cases, they kept going to work during the pandemic, unlike other workers whose workplaces were closed but who were able to continue working from home. These workers flew personal protective equipment to other parts of the world, ensured the supply of basic necessities and even worked under conditions where their health and safety were not protected.

In the travel sector, vaccinations ended up being the only tool employers relied on in the fight against COVID‑19, yet there are many tools to achieve the same goal. We know that. We have used them in other industries.

We kept each other safe. Most were unimpeded by severe outbreaks, and at a time when employers were experiencing worker shortages, particularly in this industry, they were terminating experienced and seasoned workers. Employers and workers have the equal responsibility to keep workplaces safe, yet the failure to do so results in uneven and disproportionate consequences.

For workers, the consequences of the loss of employment of well-paying, unionized jobs, those with benefits and pensions, will impact not just the individual but the entire family. It is unlikely these workers will find other employment that is unionized and stable, which will inevitably impact their family's standard of living. No one should lose their livelihood because of personal beliefs, particularly when alternatives to reach the same goal exist. The government knows that.

We think workers who kept the industry flying during the most challenging times of the pandemic deserve better. By creating an end timeline, an end to this interim order, and a path forward, the government can eliminate the need for these employers to terminate the frontline workers we depended upon and celebrated during the height of this pandemic. It could do that today. Cases of the variant are receding in most parts of the country, and advocates for continued mandates are claiming the mantle of science to justify political positions instead of evaluating the scientific findings that have turned up in each one of our provinces and across the globe.

Just this week, a member of the House stood and offered masking advice to other members in a contrived attempt to virtue signal superiority, despite the clear rules of this place. These are based, of course, on expert evidence, presumably science, the same science the government is relying on, and which are, it is also worth noting, completely in line with what happens outside the door of this place. That exchange not only suggests a disdain for those who follow the rules the member does not like, it creates an arbitrary standard of opinion masquerading as science. That is exactly what we are hearing today. It is gross. It is purposeful, and in some respects, it speaks to a continued deliberate attack on those who do not share the views of the government. We have seen that.

When Canadians see behaviour like that, they lose their confidence in those who are responsible for public health decisions. The trust erodes. It suggests to them that the same disdain displayed for members may extend to people outside of the House. Perhaps it does because, in the absence of any data, benchmarks, timelines and plans to end these mandates, there really is nothing to suggest that continued mandates are not just an opinion of the government. If they are, that is troubling. If they are not not, they require an explanation that has not been shared, other than talking points about science.

The intention of the mandates were predicated on increased vaccination rates. We have among the highest in the world. When that narrative is no longer supported because of those high rates, the goal posts move. This week it became about surgical backlogs, which is tragic and most certainly a capacity issue, but is still inexplicable in relation to the continued federal mandate. Then it was simply a shoulder shrug from the Minister of Health, while he stated that COVID is still here. Of course, it is still here. It will always likely be here, but I hope that has not become the benchmark by which to determine when to lift these mandates or drop these restrictions. I hope that is not the case. I hope we are not hearing about COVID zero from the government.

It is time to end these unjustified mandates. I hope members of the House realize that public experts, their own public experts, the government's own public experts, have said that it is safe. The provinces have said that it is safe. Public health officials have said it is safe. I hope they agree with the Conservatives and lift the mandates so Canadians can get back to work and get their lives back.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we read the motion and listen to the members from the Conservative Party, it is abundantly clear they have used their political science to make the determination that all federal mandates need to end today. I do not know if they are feeling somewhat obligated because of their presence at the blockade protest, but I suggest it is highly irresponsible.

My question for the member is this: Does she not recognize she cannot just wish the pandemic away, that there is still a need? If we look at what is happening in some of our provinces, there is great concern regarding other variants. I wonder if the member is prepared to say today that we no longer have a pandemic. Would she not at least try to keep an open mind as to what the health experts are telling us?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the member that the national immunization task force never called for vaccine mandates. The Public Health Agency of Canada never called for vaccine mandates. The Prime Minister himself, while gallivanting across the country during an election in the midst of this pandemic, said that he would not impose vaccine mandates.

Does the member know when vaccine mandates were imposed? It was when it was politically expedient, so I am not going to take lessons from the government on political science. That is exactly what it is practising with this pandemic. That is exactly what we have seen for the last number of months. It is a shame. It is a shame for Canadian workers that it would turn its back on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple.

Considering what we have been hearing in recent days, what public health authorities are saying in Quebec, and the fact that there is now a sixth wave, I can understand the feeling of being totally fed up that people are talking about.

However, I feel like we are not connecting. On the one hand, we are hearing about concrete solutions with health transfers to deal with a sixth wave. On the other hand, we are being encouraged to listen to our constituents and, because they are fed up, some want to let them shed more measures.

I am trying to understand. The word “immediately” is used in the motion. Could we perhaps take a slightly more long-term view?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just Conservatives calling for this. It is public health officials. It is public health officials from across the 10 provinces that have already lifted their mandates. There are countries around the world where somebody who may not be vaccinated can get on an airplane. We are the only place where that does not happen.

Absolutely, it should be immediate. In fact, it should have been yesterday. We can talk about the sixth, the seventh and the eighth waves, but every single public health official, including Canada's chief public health officer, has said that it is time to live with this pandemic. It is time to give Canadians their lives back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleague's attention, after her great speech, a conversation on an Ottawa radio station yesterday with an individual responsible for tracking the variants in the sewage treatment in Ottawa. The numbers have gone up.

The individual was asked about whether we should be doing what we are doing right now in terms of lightening the mandates and giving people their lives back. His comment was that it is not a problem that the rates are rising because immunity levels are rising at the same time. I wonder if the member would like to make a comment on that.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the gentleman on the radio is in line with public health officials, including Dr. Tam and health officials from across the 10 provinces that have lifted restrictions. At some point, we have to give Canadians their livelihoods back. We have to stop being vindictive about the punishments of mandates, particularly if they are not justified and if there is no scientific purpose to say they reduce any kind of spread.

There are people who are not working. There are people who have lost their livelihoods. There are people who have lost entire incomes for entire families. They cannot return to work. We ought to think about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our Conservative motion calling on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates.

When one listens to the members opposite and their friends in the NDP, we hear it is all about science, and that they are following the science. I ask members of the NDP-Liberal government this: Where is the science? Where is the data? Where is the evidence?

For example, where is the evidence that an unvaccinated trucker, who spends most of his or her day working in isolation, is a public health risk, which somehow merits them being fired from their job? It does not take much delving into science. Indeed, it simply takes a matter of applying basic common sense to recognize what an absurdity that is, but that is precisely the policy of the NDP-Liberal government.

In the face of vaccine mandates that have infringed so significantly upon the rights and freedoms of Canadians, the very least Canadians could expect is compelling scientific evidence to back them up to demonstrate a rational connection between the mandates, stopping transmissibility and keeping Canadians safe from COVID.

After six months, the government has failed to tender any science, data or evidence whatsoever to demonstrate such a rational connection. There is a very simple reason for that, and that is because there is no rational connection. These mandates have nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics, politics of the worst kind.

Millions of Canadians have suffered as a result. As a result of the NDP-Liberal government's punitive vaccine mandates, millions of Canadians are unable to travel freely within Canada. They are unable to get on a plane or a train. These same Canadians, who are our friends, colleagues and neighbours, cannot leave the country for work, travel or health reasons, or to be reunited with loved ones. They are stuck here at home.

This is a serious, unprecedented violation of the mobility rights of Canadians and is contrary to section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When one thinks about not being able to travel within one's country, of not being able to be able to leave one's country, we think of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and Communist China, but this is Canada, and this is the reality millions of Canadians have been living through for the past six months.

So extreme are these NDP-Liberal vaccine mandates that Canada is the only country in the developed world that restricts air travel on the basis of vaccination status, the only country in the developed democratic world. Under the NDP-Liberal government, Canada is now an international outlier in restricting the freedom of movement of its citizens.

Again, it got to this point not because of science but because of an arbitrary policy of the Prime Minister, who said some months ago that it was the policy objective of his government to impose the most restrictive COVID measures in the world, no matter how unrelated and unconnected to the science they might be.

We are not talking about a severe infringement just on mobility rights; we have also seen tens of thousands of Canadians lose their jobs and the benefits they had paid into for their entire working lives, stripped of the dignity of work and the dignity of their career. They include men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who have fought bravely, putting their lives in harm's way to defend the freedoms that Canadians enjoy, who are now being threatened with dishonourable discharge because of a personal medical decision that they made. This is happening in Canada.

What these mandates are really about is control. It is about the government saying that Canadians must do as it says, and if they do not, they will be unable to travel, they will lose their jobs and benefits, they will be vilified and they will be treated as second-class citizens. How wrong. How un-Canadian.

Everywhere around the world, mandates are being lifted. In all 10 provinces, they have already been lifted or will be lifted, as well as in most of Europe. Yesterday even New Zealand, which had a completely failed approach of getting towards zero COVID, announced that is is lifting its mandates—even New Zealand. Here, we have a government that has not even provided a plan, has not even provided any metrics by which these mandates will be lifted. Instead, the government has allocated $37.4 million over the next three years to make what were supposedly intended to be temporary measures into permanent ones.

Canadians do not want to be controlled. They want to take back control of their lives. They want their freedom back, and they want it now. The only thing standing in their way is the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government, its punitive, discriminatory, unscientific mandates that have caused enormous harm to Canadians.

When the Prime Minister talked about imposing the most restrictive mandates in the world, if the Prime Minister's definition of success is being punitive, he has certainly succeeded at that, at great harm to everyday, law-abiding, taxpaying Canadians who are upstanding members of their community.

End the mandates and end them now.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about vaccine mandates and about travel restrictions in particular. He spoke about travel restrictions and mobility rights, and he actually made our travel restrictions tantamount to the regime in the Soviet Union. However, I recall that just last year it was his party on that side of the House that was screaming for border measures to be implemented and for travel to be restricted for Canadians.

Did the hon. member refer to his former leader and his party as being equivalent to leaders in the Soviet Union, or is it just political talk today and amnesia about his own party's previous position?