Debates of March 24th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Federal Vaccine Mandates

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

Madam Speaker, in the motion, the Conservative Party is saying it wants to stop the mandates completely, as in it would have no mandates effective today.

Can the member tell the House whether he believes that the political science the Conservative Party is using by making that statement is right and fair in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will just reiterate the comments of Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Tam. On February 18, she said, “We should be able to manage the pandemic going into the future without, I think, some of the more stringent or restrictive public health measures.”

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for London North Centre.

There is no overstating the fact that the past two years have not been easy. As individuals and as a society, we are all worn out. The pandemic truly was a tragedy, and it had many and varied impacts on all aspects of society. Businesses had to close their doors either temporarily or, in some cases, permanently because they went bankrupt. Seniors were affected. In some residences, the death rate was utterly unacceptable. Some residents could not leave their rooms for weeks. They were totally isolated. We also know the pandemic had a terrible impact on everyone's mental health, especially those in isolation, such as seniors who had to stay in their rooms, as well as frontline workers who were so brave and did such amazing work to keep us safe. It also harmed young people, students who could not get the kind of educational experience they normally would. Basically, it was very hard for everyone.

The fact is that Canada chose a more careful approach. We were much more careful than many other countries. That is why we had a lower mortality rate than many other countries, including our neighbour to the south. Our mortality rate was roughly one-third of that in the United States. I think we should be proud of that. The Minister of Health has repeated many times that if the vaccination rate in the United States had been the same as in Canada, they would have saved 135,000 lives. That is a lot. We do not think about that so much these days. We no longer think about the lives that were saved. We only think about making life a bit easier by lifting all sorts of restrictions and mandates, even though we have lifted many so far and life has returned more or less to normal.

Our success in saving lives is a result of the wisdom and sacrifices of Canadians who have shown exemplary solidarity by following the health rules. It is also the result of the leadership shown by the federal and provincial governments. That leadership was crucial. In this crisis, the governments had to lead by example by working together. In other words, the governments were able to get on the same page.

The same cannot be said for the United States, where each state followed its own course. Sometimes the states worked against the current. In Florida, they wanted nothing to do with masks or vaccines. I even heard that in Florida, if someone went into a restaurant wearing a mask, they were kicked out for scaring the customers. California's approach, however, was similar to Canada's and the governor was nearly thrown out of office.

In a crisis, we cannot underestimate the vital importance of Canadians maintaining faith in their institutions. That is when it is most important for citizens to have faith in their institutions.

Institutions, in order to keep that faith, have to be consistent. They have to be judicious in the decisions that they are making. Any signs of inconsistency or arbitrariness can be fatal in terms of creating a loss of faith and confidence on the part of the people. If that happens, then no one is going to follow anything the government is suggesting. If that had happened in Canada, we would have had many more deaths than we experienced.

It is important also for governments to show leadership. That is why we have a vaccination mandate for federal employees. We are showing leadership. We got the support of the Canadian people to do that in an election where the Canadian people gave the Government of Canada a mandate to show the example across the country. That was very important in terms of saving lives and helping us to get out of the worst of the crisis sooner rather than later.

Canadians responded to the leadership that their governments showed. They obliged and the proof is in the fact that as of March 13, if we are looking at people five years old and older, 85% of the population has been fully vaccinated. If we look at the age group 18 and over, 56% have been fully vaccinated plus have obtained a booster.

[An hon. member]

One of the best in the world.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes.

Why is it important for the most people possible to be vaccinated? As André Picard said in The Globe and Mail, the pandemic playing field is not level. What did Mr. Picard mean by that? An 85-year-old is 340 times more likely to die from COVID than a 20-year-old. A 75-year-old is 140 times more likely to die from COVID than a 20-year-old. A 65-year-old is 65 times more likely.

André Picard is an expert in public health. His columns are consistently dealing with that issue. To quote him in The Globe and Mail recently, he wrote, “Now, by abandoning all mitigation measures at once...we’re shifting the pandemic burden entirely [to older Canadians] onto the immunocompromised, the unboosted”. That is very important to keep in mind. When we argue that we should just drop everything, we are doing harm to the most vulnerable in our society.

The other point I would like to make is that all pandemic-related decisions are extremely complex. Not only are they a function of many factors, but these factors are dynamic and constantly changing. The Minister of Health mentioned some of these factors in question period in his wonderful responses to the questions he received. Here are some of the factors that public health has to consider and the government has to consider when deciding when to remove restrictions: the vaccination rate, hospital capacity, domestic epidemiology, international epidemiology and social impacts. This is a very long list of complicated factors that have to be looked at.

We are making comparisons that are a little too facile. We say that if the provinces do this then the federal government should do this. This seems to be the rhetoric that is coming from the other side, creating this kind of equivalency that is confusing if one is not listening closely. However, it is important to distinguish between the federal and provincial contexts. Federal measures focus on international transmissions. Provincial restrictions do not. There is a big difference between a crowded conveyance like an airplane or a train and movie theatres, gyms, shopping malls, grocery stores and the like. We have to use our wisdom to make distinctions that are important, especially in times of crisis.

I will conclude by quoting Mr. Picard one more time. He says, “We should not, after two years of solid effort and no small amount of sacrifice, be so foolish as to abandon prevention.” We must remain vigilant, responsible and wise.

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

Madam Speaker, the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated by the hour. NATO's refusal to provide a safe humanitarian no-fly zone has weighed heavily on me and my constituents. The news is inundated with images of young women and children at border crossings in Poland as they flee the tyranny of Herr Putin.

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has issued a class-based national interest exemption to allow unvaccinated Ukrainians to enter Canada, and I commend him highly for this. However, does it not seem hypocritical in light of the debate we are having here today? Would it not make more sense to listen to the science and end the mandates so that everyone could travel freely?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, again, the opposition is simplifying things. There are very few absolutes in anything, whether it be environmental protection or public health. We work with a risk management approach. That is what governments have been doing all along.

We cannot just have blanket statements or blanket policies that overlook certain exceptions that have merit. I am sure that for anyone coming over here from the crisis overseas, there will be public health officers helping them along the way. I do not think we can just paint everything with one brush. We have to be a little more nuanced than that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding, Shefford, I attend the meetings of an economic and strategic watch committee established by the Haute-Yamaska RCM that brings together players from the economic and tourism sectors, as well as municipal elected officials and Quebec MNAs. Everyone agrees on one thing. We need predictability to keep many sectors of our economy going, including tourism, which is so important to the riding of Shefford.

It is therefore a cautious yes, as Quebec and the other provinces are saying. The federal government, however, has no timeline and no predictability when it comes to reopening measures, even though that would help us plan for next steps and ensure a better recovery. It is important that the federal government act within a specific timeframe to be able to clarify all this.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the biggest obstacle in the tourism sector, in my opinion, was the pre-arrival test needed to enter Canada. Now that those tests will no longer be required as of April 1, I think that will mean fewer barriers to tourism, especially within Canada.

I am sure there are many Canadians who would like to visit my colleague's beautiful region. What I heard from my constituents, however, was that they were more concerned about the required tests that were so expensive.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his amazing work chairing our environment and sustainable development committee.

I would like to ask the hon. member about his government's decision not to support the TRIPS waiver. We know that vaccination is key around the world to keeping people in low-income countries safe but also to keeping people here in Canada safe. I am curious if the member agrees that we need to temporarily waive intellectual property rights so that low-income countries could produce vaccines and save lives.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. As someone said, we will not be safe until everyone in the world is safe.

I am not particularly ideological about how we ensure that everyone is vaccinated. Whatever approach is most efficient in terms of getting the rest of the world vaccinated is the one we should go with. Intellectual property is, of course, a very complex field. We want to ensure that whatever measures we take actually result, at the end of day, in greater production and greater distribution of the vaccines.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will try to make my question as short as possible, but I have to throw something else in first. It is my granddaughter Sara's seventh birthday today, and I want to wish her a happy birthday from the House of Commons. I hope she is watching at home. I do not know if she is.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could tell the House how we compare to the rest of the G7 countries when it comes to vaccinations.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish a happy birthday to Sara. She is very fortunate to have such a wonderful grandfather, whom I am sure she is extremely proud of.

The last time I looked, I think we were second or third in the G20. I know it tends to change over time, but all I know is that we were very much near the top and that is something we as Canadians can be very proud of.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair again, and I hope you are doing well today.

It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on matters. Today we are speaking on the opposition motion of our colleagues in the Conservative Party. Reading directly from the motion, it calls for the lifting of “all federal vaccine mandates”. It offers a few rationales for that point of view. Namely, because the provinces and territories have either put in place a plan to do so or have already done so, the federal government should act accordingly.

The issue this ignores entirely is one of jurisdiction. Provinces and territories should continue and will continue to take decisions that are within their jurisdiction based on the local health situation. Of course, public health agencies at a local level will inform that process with their engagement with the chief medical officer of every respective province or territory. That is the system. That is how it works. That is how it should work in a federation.

The federal government, for its part, will operate, as I say, in its jurisdiction on the question of mandates and on the advice of the public health experts at the Public Health Agency of Canada. I am not sure if members have noted this for Hansard, but I will. I want to thank public officials at PHAC. Throughout this pandemic, they have stood up in ways that are immeasurable and in ways that history will recognize as a true contribution to Canadian public policy and to an emergency response.

Where I want to focus my attention today is not so much on the politics of those questions. I want to take a step back, if I could, and ask a fundamental question. It is a surprise to me that this issue keeps coming up. My colleagues in the Bloc have not raised it, and my colleagues in the NDP have not raised it. They may have raised it when the opportunity posed itself, but they have not made it a motion. They have not decided to devote an entire opposition day to it.

My friends in the Conservative Party have, and they continue to devote themselves to this issue. Today's question period, for example, is a case in point. Almost the entire duration of question period was taken up by focusing on this one issue. There are so many other things happening in Canada, and internationally too, that they could have raised, but they kept going back to this.

I am not sure why. I have some thoughts on the matter. I think it has everything to do with the fact that, at some point in the history of the Conservative Party, it became a libertarian party. What is at the core of the philosophy of libertarianism? I know I only have a few minutes, but there are a few insights that need to be put on the record.

Philosopher Robert Nozick is perhaps the most noted libertarian. He said, “There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more.”

I offer that. I am not a Conservative, but I have Conservative friends and frequently they will resort to arguments about individualism. We need to understand a philosophic rationale for libertarianism, which Robert Nozick provides. It is about the individual for him and nothing more.

In political terms, we can look to Ronald Reagan, but especially to Margaret Thatcher. The transition in the Conservative Party started modestly in the 1980s but especially continued in the nineties and continues into the modern day, and Margaret Thatcher was absolutely instrumental in that change. She said:

...who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business....

Here is another point of view that emphasizes the individual. It is all about self-reliance. The state's job is to get out of the way. The state can provide for a few basic things such as police, a military and basic taxation. Apart from that, apart from offering this idea of what Nozick called the “night-watchman” state, it is about individuals being left alone to pursue their interests as they see fit.

Particularly, as it relates to mandates, when Nozick said, “Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others”, I think that is what provides the Conservatives with so much concern about mandates, that it represents state overreach. It represents the state interfering in the lives of individuals and trampling on their individual rights to pursue their interests as they see fit. It is an interesting idea.

Much has been written about libertarianism, but its weakness has become clear during emergencies and crises, particularly public health crises like COVID. So much so that an ardent disciple of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, said that in fact there is “such a thing as society.” There are individuals, yes, but they live and exist within a society, and those individuals have a duty to one another. That is where I think, as a point of departure, we have to begin the discussion on mandates.

It is not as if we and those who support the introduction and maintenance of federal vaccine mandates do not recognize the importance of individuals. Of course, we do, as well as individual rights. That philosophy is also core to the Liberal Party of Canada, but mandates in the context of COVID‑19, which is still with us and is global, which is what a pandemic is by definition, are key and they are not forced vaccination. Mandates reflect a public health duty. Mandates have saved thousands of lives. In Canada, taken with vaccinations, mandates have helped to save the lives of no less than 400,000 people according to the estimates of experts. Epidemiologists and other public health experts have put that number forward. In the United States, the number is even higher obviously. Over a million lives were saved there. In Europe, the same sort of narrative follows.

Another way to understand the value of mandates is to follow what the philosopher T.M. Scanlon said, “If we can prevent something very bad from happening to someone by making a slight or even moderate sacrifice, it would be wrong not to do so.” Therefore, mandates ask all of us to make a moderate sacrifice. That much is sure. Only the state has the ability to implement such a system, a vaccine mandate system, but that moderate sacrifice is absolutely worth it when we understand that the result of that leads to lives being saved.

Our colleague who just spoke cited the very well-known and well-respected commentator on Canadian public affairs, who is also the public health specialist for The Globe and Mail. When André Picard talks about, for instance, the elderly and those who are immunocompromised still facing a heightened risk, even though we see declining rates of hospitalization and infection rates, we have to remain vigilant and the federal government needs to maintain a broad perspective as part of the calculus as to whether or not vaccine mandates still have a place in Canada.

As we just heard, it is important for the Public Health Agency of Canada to, among other things, assess the international epidemiology. Of course, COVID‑19 remains a pandemic. For that reason, operating in its area of jurisdiction, understanding the international situation, not just the domestic one, the advice given to the federal government is that vaccine mandates still have a role to play.

For the Conservatives, this apparently represents a limitation of individual freedom and state overreach, but it should not. Vaccine mandates are about saving lives and that is a duty that we should all live up to. We are individuals who live in a society. Without adhering to a duty to one another, a collective responsibility, individuals cannot thrive, so what I call for, as a final point here, is to recognize the importance of duty in our politics and not just individualism.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak and look forward to questions.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I agree with some of what the member talked about with respect to principles, but where we part company is when we discuss the principles underlying libertarianism and individuality. I am going to put the question that I put to the health minister today to him. He talked about the efficacy of mandates when it comes to helping out the whole.

Nancy, an indigenous single woman, can work 100% from home. Why is the current government, the NDP-Liberal government, not accommodating her?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, my colleague's constituent is a public servant. The federal government has engaged with public servants throughout. Accommodations have been given where possible, and it continues to engage on that basis and other bases. I will say that more ought to be done by all governments, at every level, to work with individuals who are still vaccine-hesitant.

There is a difference between anti-vaxxers and those who are vaccine-hesitant, and perhaps there needs to be more engagement with individuals who fall into the hesitancy category. The media have a responsibility in that regard, public health experts have a responsibility in that regard, so too do governments. I do not know the individual circumstances of the constituent, but that is what I would put to my colleague.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

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

We know that measures for travellers will be relaxed on April 1. That is good news, but it is a little late. Once again, the government is slow to act.

It is important that the government provide a timetable for lifting health measures in order to maintain social cohesion. We know full well that everyone is tired of the pandemic, tired of wearing a mask and tired of following health restrictions. However, we are hopeful and moving forward.

We must not lift all the restrictions immediately. We must apply the lessons learned from the previous waves, because there may be a sixth wave. I am asking my colleague what he thinks of presenting a timetable for lifting health measures in order to maintain social cohesion.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not unreasonable to suggest this. However, one also has to do so while keeping in mind the nature of the pandemic and the fact that it is constantly a fluid situation. It is a constantly ever-evolving situation.

I think that, when we look at the pandemic, we cannot look at it in isolation. We have to look at it domestically. We have to look at the international situation. We have to be mindful of those things. We have to take public health advice. It is very difficult to come up with a timetable when the pandemic is constantly evolving and constantly in flux.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to start out by indicating that I have always been in strong support of mandates and I do not believe it is my job as an elected official to make public health decisions. I think that is up to public health experts.

One of the things that I have been concerned about and certainly have raised in the House before is that I feel that the pandemic and mandates have been used to divide, in the way that this government has utilized very divisive language, which has resulted in families turning against family members and colleagues turning against colleagues. Even now, we see people who are choosing to wear masks being attacked for choosing to do so.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he agrees with his colleague from Louis-Hébert that this Liberal government has made a deliberate decision to politicize Canada's vaccine strategy on the eve of and during the last election.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a respect, a friendship and a great affinity for the colleague that was just mentioned, the MP for Louis-Hébert. I was elected with him in 2015. On that matter, we simply disagree. I do not believe that there has been a politicization of the pandemic. Certainly, there has been division in Canadian society; there is no question.

However, there is nothing wrong with encouraging people who can get vaccinated, where it does not pose a health challenge or some other challenge to their physical well-being, to get vaccinated. That is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time is up.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, The Environment; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Government Appointments; the hon. member for Bow River, The Economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to start by letting you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Vaccine mandates have had a very real impact on the lives of Canadians. As the situation has evolved, governments have had to change. We have seen that as the case for governments across Canada, as well as governments all across the world. Sadly, what we have seen from the Liberal-NDP coalition government is that it has been slow to act. It was initially slow to close the borders. Then it was slow to get vaccines, slow to get rapid tests, slow to reopen the borders and now slow to end federal mandates.

On Monday, the health minister said at health committee, “We want to apply the least disruptive measures in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians, and the conversation will evolve as the situation evolves.” The situation has evolved significantly since the vaccine mandates on domestic travel were initially applied. It is worth noting that, when domestic travel vaccine mandates were first imposed, they were based on an idea that those who were vaccinated were much less likely to contract and therefore spread COVID. However, this changed as the omicron variant took over. As far as I can see, it no longer serves the original policy goal of preventing the spread of COVID. It just serves to needlessly divide Canadians.

Last week, I was contacted by a constituent. She was really devastated and she was really having a hard time. She is a nurse and she has worked throughout the pandemic, serving vulnerable Albertans as a registered nurse. She has been unable to be vaccinated because she has a medical exemption. She actually has an allergy to vaccines, and not just this vaccine but many vaccines. It is an anaphylactic allergy. It is something that is literally a life and death situation for her. All because of this, her employer, Alberta Health Services, has given her reasonable accommodations, so she has been able to continue serving as one of our frontline health care heroes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite having medical exemptions, the process to be able to get on an airplane was not simple or straightforward, nor was it very timely. While I understand that many members in this chamber do not understand the vastness that is the country of Canada, my constituent is from Ontario, which was 3,600 kilometres away. Driving was not really a feasible option. Her father, who was in Ontario, had just passed away sadly, and she really wanted to be there with her family at this really difficult time, to be able to mourn with her mother and attend the celebration of life for her father.

However, this is the problem with any kind of really strict rule. There will inevitably be people who are stuck in the margins and for whom those rules do not necessarily make sense. Those rules cause undue and unnecessary hardship. That was the case with these rules. I was able to help this constituent navigate through the bureaucratic nightmare and the red tape so that she could get on a plane in a timely fashion and make it in time for her dad's funeral.

However, as I was helping this constituent, it really made me stop and wonder about all the constituents who are not vaccinated, have a sudden death in their family and do not have a medical exemption. What are those constituents supposed to do? Why are we continuing to needlessly divide Canadians? Why are we continuing to stigmatize Canadians who are vaccine-hesitant, who are unable to be vaccinated or who, for any number of reasons, whether they be religious or otherwise, might choose not to be vaccinated?

I had another constituent contact me about a month ago. Her sister was really not doing well. She was in palliative care. She also had to fly. She had one vaccine, but had to wait 28 days before she could get her second vaccine and then another 14 days after that before she could get on a plane. She was not anti-vax; she just had not gotten around to it for a number of reasons. We need to show compassion. We need to understand that there is humanity. There are human cases here, and it is very real throughout most of rural Canada. We really need to do better.

We have among the strictest rules on vaccine mandates and restrictions, when it comes to domestic travel, in the entire world. I am not saying that they did not at some point serve some kind of purpose, but right now they do not serve the original policy goal that they set out to. I do not believe that bullying and name-calling are effective methods to get one's way. My mom used to tell us all the time that sticks and stones may break our bones, but words would never hurt us. However, it was not okay to hurt somebody by name-calling. It did not really matter that it would not physically hurt them, because it would still hurt them.

Yesterday, at the health committee, Dr. Cohen, the CEO of the Canadian Psychological Association, appeared. When we asked her about this, and whether a productive way to get more Canadians vaccinated was to stigmatize them, bully them and call them names, she said there was behavioural science that showed that it was actually a very ineffective way. I am paraphrasing. This goes to a point. Why we are making people jump through these hoops at this point in time? Why can we not just treat people like people?

We have among the highest vaccination rates in the world. We have complied for the last two years. Canadians have stayed home when they were asked to stay home. At this point, they need to see a path out of this. The federal mandates regarding travel restrictions are very much imposing on constituents in my riding. That is just one small example. Men and women who have served our country are being threatened with the loss of their jobs and benefits because, for some reason, they have chosen not to get vaccinated. I am not even sure what the reason is, but it does not really matter to me what the reason is. We need to think, deep in our hearts and souls, about whether we want our legacy to be that, when given the opportunity to do the right thing, we chose to sit idly by and let Canadians continue to be divided.

One of the things that has been brought to my attention on so many occasions in my constituency through correspondence is why we continue to divide. Why do we not just allow hope, and why do we not have a plan? Provinces have ended their mandates and our G7 allies have ended their mandates. They are following the emerging science, and I understand that the science has changed substantially. What we know now about COVID is much different from what we knew originally. When we know better, we have an opportunity to do better.

I am asking all members in this assembly to keep in mind that many of us represent large rural ridings on which these travel mandates have a very direct impact. It is really complicated. I implore all members to please do the right thing and end the travel mandates and all federal mandates for the best of our country.

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

Madam Speaker, the motion states, “the House call on the government to immediately lift all federal vaccine mandates”. I asked one of the member's colleagues who the medical experts were who were saying the federal government should lift every mandate effective immediately. The member came back by saying that it was Dr. Tam.

Dr. Tam is Canada's public health officer. Dr. Tam indicated that the federal government was examining all of the vaccine mandates when she stated, “I think the federal government has taken a very precautionary, thoughtful approach. They're looking at a phased approach of removing some of these policies. I know these policies are being reviewed and re-examined as we speak.” Not all provinces have ended mandates. It is false to make that statement.

Why do the Conservatives stand alone in the House demanding that the mandates end today? Who are the health experts they are listening to?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor, but I do follow the advice of doctors and I think that the countries around the world that have been dropping their mandates and restrictions when it comes to travel cannot all be wrong. I asked the Minister of Health today if he thought that all the chief medical officers of health across the country were wrong, as they have been ending mandates and restrictions.

A month ago we asked simply for a plan to end the mandates and restrictions, and the members opposite voted against it. Today, we ask for the mandates to simply end, and I am sure they are probably going to vote against it, but I would implore them not to.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's comment around our understanding of COVID-19 continuing to evolve. We know that this is a global pandemic, and until we increase access to vaccinations around the world, we will continue to see new variants right here at home.

Does the member agree that Canada needs to support the TRIPS waiver at the WTO to expand global vaccine production, particularly for middle- and low-income countries?