Debates of March 24th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Federal Vaccine Mandates

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

Health measures are being lifted by provinces. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit communities continue to say they lack basic health care and infrastructure. This is dangerous, especially for elders.

Does the minister agree that increased financial investments and infrastructure must be provided for indigenous health?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, through the member for Nunavut, I would like to thank Minister John Main in Nunavut, with whom I have a very good relationship. I have a lot of esteem for him. We have been working on many different things, including providing health care support to the people of Nunavut, including providing rapid tests. We had a brief very recent exchange on that to make sure that the rapid tests and of course vaccines are coming at the right speed and in the right manner.

I congratulate and thank the large number of people in Nunavut who have been vaccinated. As we build on the health care support and investment that we have provided to Nunavut over the last few months, we will continue to be able to protect the health and safety of those living in that territory.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the health restrictions in our country and the vaccination rates across our nation have contributed to a hearteningly low death rate in Canada when compared to many of our peer nations in the G7, particularly in the U.K. and the United States.

It is evident that our protocols have managed to keep Canadians safe. What specific protocols can we look back on as ones that contributed to our lower death rate?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we heard recently that if we had the same death rate in Canada that we saw in the United States, there would have been 60,000 more people dying in Canada than we saw over the last two years. Despite that, 7,000 Canadians did die over the last few weeks because of omicron. These are obviously individual and community tragedies.

The reason we have been able to do much better in Canada relative to many other countries is that there has been less misinformation and less disinformation, in particular on vaccination. In Canada, we have been able to trust our experts, trust our scientists and get access to that tool, which is the most important tool for continuing to protect people's health, lives and safety.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the isolation, the financial pressures and the extraordinary measures that Canadians have endured have all taken a toll on our mental health. Pre-COVID statistics tell us that every day an average of 11 Canadians die by suicide. For every person lost by suicide, over 275 Canadians attempt suicide each and every day. Unnecessary vaccine mandates are further exacerbating our mental health issues.

Over 468 days ago, the members opposite all voted in favour of my motion to bring an easy-to-remember three-digit suicide prevention number, 988, to Canada. Can the minister tell us why they have done nothing to bring the 988 to Canada? They have dragged their feet. Why have they not implemented this important number?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have these brief reactions.

The member is correct in speaking to the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. About half of Canadians report that their mental health has suffered because of COVID-19. Eighty per cent of health care workers also say that their mental health has fallen. I was speaking to a representative of the Canadian Pharmacists Association yesterday. About 90% of pharmacists in Canada have found the experience of the last two years very stressful.

Regarding the engagement and commitment of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the minister spoke to that at the health committee just a few days ago, I think on Monday. I would invite the member to look at the record. We assure him that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions will keep working very diligently on that important file.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Since the start of this pandemic, I have often asked myself the following question: What should I do? It is the pre-eminent ethical and political question.

In this debate, we must consider the ethical principle of responsibility. That is the approach taken by the Bloc Québécois from the outset of the pandemic. Since the first wave, we have been making decisions by trying to predict the positive and negative impacts they would have on the future. We did not make decisions based on what had happened or what would happen. We owe it to the most vulnerable to do what is ethically responsible.

I will try not to make this a partisan debate. Obviously, everyone is fed up with the pandemic and tired of restrictions. When making public health policy, we must avoid making decisions based on whims or on which way the wind is blowing. As representatives of the people, we must avoid being opportunistic and partisan. Above all, we must make informed decisions that are based not on individual interests or how we feel that day, but on the common good and everyone's best interest. The position that the Bloc Québécois is taking today is guided by these ethical considerations.

It might be easier if we were in an endemic situation. Has the pandemic reached its endemic threshold? Some people think that, once we reach this threshold, we will be able to lift all of the health measures and act as if the pandemic and the virus no longer exist.

In the five waves that have hit us, what infuriates me is to see how some people and some members of the House have unfortunately appropriated the opinions of experts and scientists. We have embraced a new religion, scientism. Scientists, however are unpretentious people. Usually, they are certain only about their uncertainty. Science is merely the calculation of uncertainties. The difference between science and religion is that science can be falsified.

That being said, it is really tiresome to hear so many people say that we need to base our decisions on science. I do not have a problem with that, but scientists themselves cannot agree on many issues. Beyond the scientific facts, we need to apply the ethics of responsibility for the common good. That is the point to our discussion today.

Will immediately lifting all the health measures as proposed in today’s motion help or hurt the situation? That is the question.

I would like to talk about the endemic phase, because no one has brought it up during this debate. Some experts, if I may use the term, say that those who believe that the word “endemic” means living with the virus and lifting all health restrictions are wrong. It can even be dangerous to believe that, because it can lead to an excess of optimism and, by extension, unexpected waves of outbreaks.

In the endemic phase, we still need to control the disease. We need to limit the spread of the virus by providing better ventilation, controlling the spread and increasing hospital capacity, since some people will end up in hospital.

Point (a) of today’s motion says that we need to protect jobs. I looked at the employment rate recently. In February 2020, it was 5.7%. Two years later, in February 2022, after two years of pandemic, it was 5.5%.

Point (b) mentions enabling Canadians to travel unimpeded. As of this morning, according to the United States embassy and consulate, if I want to cross the border, I must show a passport, proof of vaccination or a negative test result. If I want to go to Europe, the same rules apply.

Just recently, WHO spoke out strongly against the lifting of measures in Europe. Were measures lifted too soon?

Earlier, I was listening to the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who talked about a plan throughout his speech. We agree that a plan is needed. The federal government should have tabled a plan like the provinces and Quebec did. A plan would enable us to plan and to adapt to the situation. There are some constants in this pandemic.

Quebec's plan includes lifting the mask mandate in some public places as of mid-April, but just having a plan gives Quebec the time to react if the number of cases grows, as is currently happening in Europe. It is therefore quite possible that the Quebec government will tell us that the lifting of the mask mandate is postponed for two weeks. However, the federal government did not table a plan, and that is shameful. It would be good if the government would think about that and if today's debate would inspire the government to table a plan.

Point (c) of today's motion says that we need to ensure the recovery of Canada's tourism industry. However, the day we lift all restrictions and face a resurgence in the number of infections, the tourism industry will be the first one affected.

One of the constants of this pandemic is that we have always had a month to see things coming. What happens in Europe happens here a month later. We thought we would be spared during the first and second waves, but that has never been the case, and we might be on the verge of a sixth wave.

Another constant that everyone has experienced is that infections surge every time restrictions are lifted. The restrictions were lifted for legitimate reasons, such as ensuring that people would keep complying with public health measures and messages, to protect mental health, or to give people a break over the Christmas holidays or March break, for example.

Implementing public health measures is akin to practising medicine on a large scale. If patients stop complying, there is nothing else that can be done. I believe that we are on the verge of a new wave, at least in Quebec.

The people who are saying that it is not so bad because omicron is milder should try saying that to patients with terminal cancer who do not have COVID‑19 and who feel abandoned. The pandemic is affecting our health care networks, which were already weakened. Our quality of life has been restricted because these networks have not been able to provide care to patients dealing with anything other than COVID‑19.

The federal government needs to increase health transfers immediately. It is inconceivable to think that the government would not provide more funding to strengthen our networks so that we can get through the sixth, seventh and eighth waves without having our lives disrupted like they were during the first five waves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his balanced and well-thought-out speech, as well as for his collaboration at the Standing Committee on Health.

I have a simple question. Did the experts my colleague talked to indicate that the time has come to declare this pandemic over?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we could, in fact, be on the verge of a resurgence of infections. Quebec is preparing for a sixth wave.

We have not yet reached what is referred to as the endemic phase, where the rate of infection levels off and, with the appropriate measures and predictability, we are able to control the vectors and therefore the health care networks. We are a long way from that.

Just look at what is happening in other countries. This is going to affect us too or is starting to affect us. I am talking about the resurgence that happened in Denmark and is currently happening in Europe.

We have to continue to be careful. The precautionary principle must be applied. We owe it to the most vulnerable.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Montcalm for his speech.

I want to follow up on a question his colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, asked the Minister of Health earlier this morning.

Given that vaccination rates remain significantly lower—below 15%—in low-income countries, we obviously need to do more to support global vaccine equity if we are to get through this pandemic.

Can my colleague comment on the importance of Canada supporting the World Trade Organization's efforts to temporarily waive certain parts of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights as it relates to COVID-19 technologies?

I thank my colleague for his patience as I work on my French.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks French very well and his question is fundamental. We are in a pandemic. By definition, a pandemic is global. This is not an epidemic; it is a pandemic.

I invited members of Amnesty International to appear before a parliamentary committee. They came to speak to us about this waiver, which Canada should support. It is absolutely clear.

Canada has good intentions, but it does not seem to be following through. It must be much more proactive and help get patents waived since that would democratize access to vaccines and anti-virals.

We must also provide more support for the supply and deployment chain in developing countries. It is not good enough to send vaccines that sometimes expire two weeks later. We must provide the logistical support needed so that the vaccines can be administered.

Having vaccines produced on site would prevent a lot logistical problems in many cases. It would make it possible for people to be much more autonomous in terms of vaccination and enable them to provide the drugs needed to fight the pandemic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. The resolution itself is very clear. It says:

the House call on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates

I wonder if the member can provide a simple answer as to whether or not the Bloc supports the resolution.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues stated this morning, the Bloc supported the Conservatives' last motion, which called for a plan.

Today, we continue to ask for this plan, but we will not support the motion. In light of the situation around the world and here in Canada, vaccination is not the only indicator used to monitor the pandemic. That is why we will be voting against the motion.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his speech and the essential work that he does for the Bloc Québécois on the very important health file.

I, too, am going to talk about the Conservative Party's motion, which calls on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates. I will not keep members in suspense for very long. I can say right now that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will be voting against the Conservative motion.

It would be both irresponsible and excessive to immediately lift all vaccine mandates, and the Conservatives chose a rather strange time to move this motion. I am wondering which media outlet the Conservative strategists get their news from.

I would like to inform my colleagues of the latest news. After a period of pandemic calm combined with the lifting of restrictions across the western hemisphere, we have been seeing a strong resurgence in cases of COVID-19 in Europe over the past week. According to the World Health Organization, or WHO, there has been a resurgence of the pandemic in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Greece, France, Italy, Germany and 12 other countries in the European region. On Tuesday, the WHO director for Europe criticized European countries for lifting their COVID-19 restrictions too abruptly, saying this was likely responsible for the current rise in cases.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the COVID-19 waves have started in Europe and then come to Canada. There have been five waves in two years, so we are starting to get familiar with the pattern. There is nothing to indicate that the sixth wave will be any different. Just yesterday, Luc Boileau, Quebec's director of public health, announced that Quebec should prepare for a new wave of COVID-19 because of the arrival of the BA.2 subvariant of omicron.

According to published epidemiological data, this variant is responsible for one in two infections in Quebec. Moreover, this variant is 30% to 50% more contagious than omicron, which suggests that transmission of this variant is likely to accelerate in the coming days and weeks. Yesterday, new cases topped 2,000 in Quebec, a high that has not been seen since mid‑February. It seems irresponsible to demand that the remaining measures be lifted at this time. We run the risk of abruptly going from too much to too little.

We would be better off taking a cautious and well-thought-out approach that takes into account the epidemiological data on the ground. Decisions must be made based on the science. This type of motion is excessive and serves no purpose right now. This motion looks more like an attempt by the Conservatives to politicize the pandemic, vaccination and health measures. The Conservative Party is not the only one doing that, however. The Liberals and the Prime Minister are also guilty of fuelling the extreme polarization that Canadians deplore. I remind members that the Liberal Party made mandatory vaccination for federal employees a key part of their campaign during the election that they called last summer for no other apparent reason.

By constantly inserting the vaccination issue into political debate, the Liberal Party has helped turn this public health issue into an ideological one. That is bad. It has turned the choice not to get vaccinated into a political act, an act of protest. Rather than foster compliance and solidarity, it has kept Quebeckers and Canadians away from vaccination clinics and divided them.

The Conservatives, for their part, have adopted a frankly irresponsible attitude since the start of the public health crisis, and this has only gotten worse in recent months. They have become standard-bearers for the most radicalized elements of movements opposed to public health measures. Early last month, that opposition culminated in a full-blown siege of Canada's parliamentary precinct. For three long weeks, the day-to-day lives of the people of Ottawa and Gatineau came to a standstill. Businesses had to close up shop, and historic and symbolic monuments were desecrated by the invaders.

As this chaotic circus was unfolding just a few dozen metres from the House, the Conservatives were taking photos with the illegal protesters.

There are no winners in this ideological war being waged between the Liberal Party and Conservative Party. Everyone loses. In contrast to these two warring parties, which are ignoring science so as to further their political interests, the Bloc Québécois is rising above the fray and advocating a reasonable, transparent approach based on science rather than points in the polls. In that sense, we believe that the government must act prudently by lifting health measures gradually and in accordance with the evolving epidemiological data.

In addition, in order to encourage compliance with measures that need to be maintained for a while, the government needs to be transparent and explain why certain measures must be maintained. Pandemic fatigue is real, and people deserve information and some degree of predictability from their government. In that sense, the government needs to justify the measures it decides to maintain, while setting out, with the help of public health, the conditions and thresholds that must be met for them to be lifted.

I would remind members that these measures should protect the most vulnerable, our health care workers and our hospital system, which were hit even harder in the fifth wave. However, it would be false and dangerous to believe that the health care system is only vulnerable because a minority of people continue to refuse to be vaccinated. The system is vulnerable because, unfortunately, the federal government has slowly cut its investments in health care over the decades. In 1958, the federal government covered 50% of the system's costs, while today it funds only 22%.

The provinces and Quebec have had to steadily rationalize the services provided as they kept being forced to do more with less. Until we have a robust health care system, we will be vulnerable to health crises and at the complete mercy of the epidemiological ups and downs caused by the emergence of new variants. In March 2020, many believed that COVID-19 was over. Two years later, very few people dare to predict how much longer it could last.

To be adequately equipped to deal with the pandemic and stop the revolving door, the first step is for the federal government to restructure health care funding. On that point, the Liberal government needs to understand that it is completely alone in its stubborn decision to keep transfers too low or to postpone until after the pandemic negotiations with Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers. Every opposition party is united in support of a major increase in health transfers. The premiers of the provinces and Quebec are united in condemning the federal disinvestment in health. On hospital floors, health care workers are expressing the urgent needs they see and the inhumane conditions they have to work in because of the lack of resources. Even PHAC is inviting the government to learn from the pandemic and ensure that there is stable and ongoing funding for public health expenses.

I will conclude my speech by calling on the Liberal government to take note of the consensus expressed at all levels of Quebec and Canadian society and realize that we cannot fully and sustainably get out of this pandemic without a robust and sound health care system. The government needs to increase health transfers to 35% of the cost of the system and guarantee a subsequent annual escalator of 6%. These transfers also need to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, which have the expertise and the constitutional prerogative to lead their respective health care systems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his judicious speech today.

He quite rightly noted that we must remain vigilant. The Conservatives have continuously politicized the pandemic.

Can my colleague comment on our mutual obligation to do the prudent and responsible thing in the face of such a risk?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of prudence, I have a few suggestions for my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Calling an election in the middle of a pandemic is not very prudent. Making mandatory vaccination of federal employees an ideological issue right at the start of a pointless election campaign was not very prudent either, and it certainly did not encourage compliance.

When it comes to prudence, I would invite my colleague to stop and think about whether his government's actions really resulted in greater compliance or whether they divided people and raised tensions over vaccination.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Charter rights of three million unvaccinated Canadians have been violated over the past year. They cannot board a plane or train or cross the border.

Does the member think this is one measure that could be lifted right now?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

Is it unreasonable to want to protect people who use certain means of transportation? I do not think so. This is about trying to protect people. I think what is unreasonable is calling for the removal of measures without taking the science into account, especially when case numbers are going up and people expect the government to keep things predictable.

We agree with the Conservative Party on that, but just tossing all the restrictions with no real plan in place is unthinkable.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the work we have to do.

The cultural sector is in need of assistance, the employment insurance regime is in need of reform and health transfers need to be paid, yet today we are debating the opposition motion.

When the Liberals brought up vaccines during the election campaign, they cast their line. Since then, the Liberals have been reeling it in and the Conservatives are the fish flopping around. In the meantime, we are not getting our job done.

Could my colleague tell us what we could be working on for Quebeckers and Canadians if the Liberals had not politicized the vaccination issue?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

We would be working on all kinds of things, such as an upcoming budget. The government did not present a budget for two years, which was unprecedented.

We would certainly be working on the record inflation rates that are affecting all Quebeckers and Canadians.

We would certainly be working on improving working conditions in our health care system, while the government stubbornly tries to hold off negotiations with the provinces and Quebec on the increase to health transfers until the pandemic is over. No one knows when this pandemic will be over, which means that the government is shelving that issue.

We would be working on the housing crisis that is raging in Quebec and in many regions, including my own. The city of Rimouski has a historically low vacancy rate of 2.2%.

In the meantime, members are sowing division and trying to figure out who is and who is not vaccinated.

Those are the types of things we are not working on.

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

Mr. Speaker, one implication of the motion is that the Canadian government could facilitate the exchange of goods and services across the border unilaterally, but there are still U.S. government requirements for vaccines that affect the exchange of goods and services.

Would the member like to comment on that aspect of the motion?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his invitation to comment.

Just because health measures are lifted or the Canadian government decides to go in another direction, it does not mean this will have any influence or significant impact on what neighbouring countries, particularly the United States, decide to do.

I would add that the Liberal government prides itself on being a strong advocate for science and evidence, but Canada is the only G7 country that cannot produce its own COVID-19 vaccine. There has been a lack of investment in science and research over the past few years. The Liberals need to walk the talk in the next budget.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

It is my great honour, as always, to stand in this place and address my colleagues, and I want to start by acknowledging something that I know we all know. We all know how difficult COVID-19 has been on us. We all know how hard it has been on children and we all know how hard it has been on parents and families. I am a mother myself, and to see my teenage children missing parts of their childhood and parts of their teenage years has been very hard. To be trapped in a house with a very active 14-year-old boy is not easy for any of us, and I sympathize with families across the country and around the world that have had to deal with that.

This pandemic has been very difficult on people's livelihoods and on businesses too. There are businesses in my riding that started right before the pandemic and could not access supports throughout this pandemic, and it has been heartbreaking to see that. We have seen the impacts on women, and not just women in Canada but women around the world, who have been set back decades by what has happened during this pandemic.

Of course, my heart breaks for the people who have lost their lives and for the families that have lost children, mothers, fathers, brothers or sisters. My heart breaks for them. In my province of Alberta, over 4,000 people died. That is 4,000 families. That is a massive impact in a province like Alberta.

When I think of all of these things and our best way forward and the best way we can work together to come out of COVID-19, what I keep thinking is that we cannot and we must not ever politicize something like a global health pandemic. We must listen to science. We must listen to medical professionals. I am not a doctor; that is not my role in this pandemic. My role will be to listen to doctors, to listen to scientists and to listen to experts. What I know is that experts are telling me that COVID-19 is not over.

I do want COVID-19 to be over. That is fine. However, that is not how global health pandemics work. It is not over. We have numbers spiking around the world. We have numbers spiking in places as far away as South Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The numbers are climbing; the variants are developing.

I am going to talk today a bit about the need to have a global response. I do not think anyone in this place will be surprised that vaccine equity is one thing that is vitally important to me and a tool we need to use. I also want to talk a bit about what results when we politicize this pandemic, and I am going to use my province as the example for that.

Members all heard the Premier of Alberta tell us that last summer was going to be the best summer ever. My premier went so far as to print hats that said, “Best summer ever”. Do members know what it became instead? It was a cautionary tale for provinces and countries around the world. We know what happens when COVID-19 is politicized. All we have to do is look at Alberta.

Albertans have been hit hard by COVID-19, and when the premier's poll numbers were hit just as hard by his terrible decisions, he decided to do the wrong thing. He decided to politicize COVID-19. He put politics, or in this case his own political survival, ahead of the interests of Albertans. He said, “influenza...does not generally threaten life apart from the elderly and the immunocompromised”. He said it is a flu. He mimicked Donald Trump's lines and even pushed ineffective and potentially dangerous treatments.

During the third wave of COVID-19, Alberta had one of the highest infection rates in Canada. It had one of the highest infection rates in the world. This is what happens when we politicize this.

I also want to talk about an idea. I think all of us in here could recognize, at least intellectually, that if we want a global health pandemic to be over, we need to have a global response. We need to make sure vaccines are available for everyone. We cannot have a motion that asks us to ignore science and thinks that is a reasonable response to the global health pandemic.

What I would have liked to see is the Conservative Party bring forward a motion that said something like, let us update our Canadian access to medicines regime to include COVID-19 medications. Let us work together to make sure that Canada is playing an active role in waiving intellectual property rights so that countries around the world can produce their own vaccines for their own populations, and let us work with countries around the world to help with vaccine hesitancy, to make sure that when vaccines are delivered, there are supply chains, there are syringes and there are all those things that need to happen so that people can actually get vaccinated.

I would have loved, and would have been so supportive of, a Conservative motion that called for the Canadian government to finally live up to its obligations to deliver the promised doses to COVAX. COVAX is a system that was supposed to ensure that the world was vaccinated. However, that system does not work when countries such as Canada have bilateral agreements and take all of the vaccine stock, and leave countries that desperately need doses to vaccinate their health care workers and their vulnerable populations with none.

This is the opposite of a good global health response. This is the opposite of what we need to do. I have to say that I look at our response to COVID-19, and I think to myself: We face a global challenge with Ukraine. We face a fundamental global challenge with climate change, and our global responses have not lived up to that task. I worry that these are showing us what a global response will look like in the future for other challenges.

I am not a virologist. I am not an epidemiologist. I am not a physician. I am pretty sure there are few of us in this chamber who are. This motion that has been brought forward is asking us to be all of those things. It turns what should be a scientific decision into a political decision, and that is wrong. It is not up to us to make scientific decisions. It must never be our role to make scientific decisions. Our job is to develop policy and legislation that is in the best interests of Canadians.

In my province of Alberta, we have lost more than 4,000 people, and we are going to lose more. Yesterday we had 500 more cases reported, and variants continue to threaten us. Until we are able to vaccinate the world, and until Canada does its part to vaccinate the world, including by signing the TRIPS waiver, the virus is going to continue to evolve, and variants are going to continue to plague the world, including our country of Canada.

This motion asks us to give up the hope that we will get through this pandemic. This motion asks us to give up our fight against this virus. It asks us to surrender. It asks us to ignore public health and science. It asks us to pretend to know better than scientists. Canadians are better than this. We care about science. We are not about to surrender at the end. We are going to continue to care for one another.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct some of the facts for my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Could the member deny how happy Albertans are now, since some, or even most, of the restrictions have been lifted, and how relieved families are at all levels that life is going back to normal? I am sure the member is receiving as many emails as I am about how happy people are about their lives going back to normal.

I am not sure if the member's speech reflects the reality of Edmontonians and Albertans with respect to this situation and the lifting of restrictions. I hope the member will take this opportunity to correct the fact that Albertans and Edmontonians are happy, and everybody wants out of the pandemic.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. We often see eye to eye as neighbours and members of Parliament for the wonderful city of Edmonton, but I have to say that my perception of where my constituents are on this is very different from what the member brought forward.

I am getting many emails from people who are deeply worried about those who cannot receive a vaccination, such as children. I am hearing from teachers who are absolutely terrified to be back in classrooms that have not dealt with the ventilation problems that we have had so far and that have not dealt with overcrowding. I am talking to health care workers who are exhausted. They are on their last straw, and hearing that the Government of Alberta does not care enough about them to maintain some of these restrictions that will keep them safe is heartbreaking. I am hearing about seniors who are worried about their own care.