Debates of May 19th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Rules and Service Levels for Travel

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

I am sorry, but I did not hear that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite misheard. I did not say I own him. I said that when it comes to the policy debate, we are “owning” the Conservatives on the legitimate policy debate.

While I am sorry I have hurt the member's feelings, if that is his issue—

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

The hon. member for Prince Albert is rising on a point of order.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think I have to pursue this, because she is trying to regenerate a different dialogue. What she said was, “We own him.” If we could please check the Hansard—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on the same point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, as the expression is known, the expression “we own you on this” does not mean that we literally own—

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

We are getting into debate.

I ask the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not to use those expressions.

The hon. member for Prince Albert is rising on a point of order.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, between that and “just inflation”—

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

We are getting into debate.

I am asking the hon. parliamentary secretary to refrain from using those expressions. They are exciting matters.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is not a problem. I will not use things that excite the members, when they are unable to control their emotions in this House. I will move on to the rest of the point, because I clearly upset the members opposite.

What I will speak about is simply the fact that the Conservatives have not based policy decisions in this House on experts, on science or on the testimony we heard at the health committee, when I was a member of that committee. We stand here today and members opposite talk about listening to the science. Time and again we heard experts. Our chief public health officer, Dr. Tam, was personally attacked by Conservatives when they disagreed with her expertise.

I find it a bit rich to stand in this place and to hear the Conservatives say, “Bring out the experts; bring out the testimony.” When we do that, when we table that information, when we have witnesses at committee, when we have reports and when we have that expert testimony, the Conservatives make personal attacks against our chief public health officer. I notice that the heckles went silent, because the Conservative members know it is true, that there are those on their benches who made personal attacks against public health officials who disagreed with them.

In addition to that, we talk about the mandates or any protections across the country throughout the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, we constantly said that there is no silver bullet and that vaccines are the safest, most effective way for us to get through this pandemic, but there are also layers of protection, and that is crucially important. Those layers of protection are going to help prevent people from getting severely ill and clogging up our emergency rooms and hospitals, and that is what the Conservatives do not understand.

There are layers of protection, not only to protect the most vulnerable, but to protect businesses by not having to enter lockdowns. If we remove every layer of protection throughout this pandemic and businesses have to close, where would the Conservatives be to defend and support those businesses? I know Conservatives did not support them when we moved measures in the budget and in Bill C-8. They voted against the supports those businesses needed.

We put in place layers of protection to help ensure, as the pandemic unfortunately is not over and COVID is still around, that we protect society, protect individuals, protect businesses, and protect our health care workers and our health care system. These are the very people those members call heroes and then attack at committee and try to discredit on social media.

I find that, while the Conservatives might try to position or package some of their motion to act like they are on the side of people, throughout this pandemic they have flip-flopped consistently whenever they felt the political mood suited them.

I turn to some of the comments I heard in this place earlier that accused the government of simply trying to punish people who have differences of opinion or who want the freedom to have a different view on things. I find this incredibly rich, considering what we all saw last night. Among the Conservative benches, they do not have the freedom to listen to science, and they do not have the freedom to speak out and have their own opinions. I heard heckles yesterday when members of our side voted in a free vote. The Conservatives criticized our members for having free votes, yet yesterday the member for Abbotsford rightly pointed out the dangers the member for Carleton was spreading about our democracy and the independence of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. What happened to the member for Abbotsford? He got the boot.

When it comes to Conservatives, the only freedom of choice they have is to listen to whatever leader happens to be running the show at the time. Therefore, it is really hard to take the Conservatives seriously when they talk about mandates, the health and safety of Canadians, and freedoms, when the Conservative benches do not even have freedom of opinion or freedom of speech. Frankly, the member for Abbotsford spoke truth to power, and he got booted to the backbench.

It is really hard to sit here and listen to Conservatives try to defend the health and safety of Canadians when they themselves are not open to listening to experts and scientists or understanding the layers of protection in place to help keep Canadians safe, keep businesses open and keep travel available. They speak about restrictions around the world, but Canadians going even to the U.S. still require testing. There are protections there. There is nothing wrong with the Canadian government doing everything in our power to ensure that there are no lockdowns in this country, that businesses can stay open, that Canadians can remain safe and that our health care heroes can have the ability to keep our health care system functioning well.

The key here is that, if we truly believe in freedom and supporting Canadians across this country, then we should not be listening to the Conservatives, who block freedom of speech and ignore when their own members speak truth to power.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will read a quote and then ask a quick question of the parliamentary secretary.

“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.” That was said by the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert back in early February speaking about who decided to politicize getting vaccinated in this country.

The president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees has talked about the fact that back in early March the mandates were a temporary measure, and he has asked the government when it was going to release a plan that explains the rationale and milestones to remove vaccine mandates.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my hon. colleague for reading that quote because he made my entire point, which is the fact that on our side, on our Liberal benches, there is the freedom for a difference of opinion. I disagree with some of the things that the member for Louis-Hébert said, but I respect him as a colleague and as a friend. The fact is that a difference of opinion actually makes our debate and discussions in our caucus healthier and richer.

I wish the Conservatives could learn from that, but they had better be careful. They may end up on the backbench if they disagree with the member for Carleton.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, since our colleague from Winnipeg North could not answer my question, I will try again and ask my other colleague.

The Liberal government implemented a new, extremely bureaucratic measure: ArriveCAN. Travellers must download the application, enter data before they leave, and enter new data when they arrive.

Can she tell me what this measure, which I find useless, actually does? What is its purpose?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of health when we started to have these conversations. Around the world, we were anticipating that there were going to be requirements for travel documentation for Canadians, and our government said that we wanted to ensure that vaccinated Canadians could share that information, have the ability to travel and prove vaccination status, but we also knew that we wanted to make sure there was a secure source available for Canadians to do this so their information is protected.

ArriveCAN was developed to help ensure that Canadians still had access to travel and that they could provide their quarantine information, making the process of travelling easier while allowing them to upload that information in a secure way that would allow Canadians access to international travel if those requirements were required when they arrived at their destinations.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think the impetus behind this motion is really important, but I think the perspectives are quite skewed. The solution needs to be practical. We in the NDP are very much focused on the workforce.

Can the government explain why it continues to undervalue the vital work in keeping the flying public safe as performed by security officers, and does it acknowledge that it is simply not doing enough to recruit new staff?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with my hon. colleague that we need practical solutions. We need to ensure that Canadians understand the rationale for the layers of protection I spoke about. With recruiting and hiring more employees, we absolutely need to work with partners. As the member knows, some of this work is done through Crown corporations or airline industries that are independent, but we absolutely need to be at the table. We need to ensure that the workforce is hired so that Canadians can move in a safe way as this pandemic continues.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

I have had the misfortune of listening to this debate for the past hour and a bit. When I use the term “misfortune”, it is because of the absolute opacity of the government. It refuses to answer even the simplest of questions during debate. Liberal members give speeches where they are obsessed with the member for Carleton, when we are supposed to be discussing the very serious issue of chaos at airports and the restrictions that are in place.

Rather than talk about that, the Liberals are going on long diatribes about independence, other members and leadership matters. I think we have to ask ourselves why. If they cannot talk about the subject matter before us, it is probably because they have almost nothing to say. That is the absolute problem with the government and these members participating in the debate.

Why are we here? Day after day, questions are asked about when the mandates will end, and what circumstances are needed in order to do that. These are not ridiculous partisan attacks, as the members across seem to suggest. I did not know they were so fragile that a direct question would be seen as a terrible partisan attack.

We keep coming back and asking reasonable questions. We brought forward a motion ages ago, just asking what conditions, metrics or benchmarks the country had to hit so restrictions could be removed. This is not asking for them to be removed. It is asking what the benchmarks are and what Canadians could look to. The Liberals would not even vote for that. The government cannot do anything reasonable with respect to things like this.

When we ask questions, we get answers like the one from the Minister of Transport, who said that travellers are out of practice and that is why the airports are backed up. Actually, that is, unfortunately, probably the best answer we have had from a minister or a member of the government with respect to what is going on, because at least it was an answer.

We have questions, real questions, the questions Canadians are asking. I know these members get the same emails from Canadians. They cannot live in some strange Liberal bubble where everyone thinks things are perfect. They must get questions about what is happening at the airports and what are they going to do to fix it. I know I get them. I bet the Speaker is getting them as well.

We put forward a motion like this to say that Canadians have had enough, that they want to see some action. They want something done. We would expect a reasonably serious response. However, for some reason, Canadians are not entitled to that. When we are here, we are the voice of not only our constituents, but also of other Canadians as well. These are the serious questions that are being asked. It is so insulting to them. I do not care about the insults that government members throw at us. We can take it. Over here, we are not so fragile. We can take the insults, but Canadians deserve those answers.

We heard the member for Winnipeg North giving his speech. I had the opportunity to ask him what the advice was, whose advice it was, what was the actual advice is, and if he could table the advice. They were insane, ridiculous questions. How dare I ask the Liberals to share the advice they had with Canadians to show why they would not remove any of the restrictions.

We have heard the terrible stories, which is why we are asking the questions. We heard the member for Prince Albert talk about a terrible experience he witnessed at the airport. I have seen that as well. People who are desperate and missing their flights. People who are having all kinds of trouble. There is not even a semblance of regret from the government about that.

That is fine. If the Liberals do not want to say to Canadians that they are sorry they are going through this, then that is on them. However, Canadians deserve an explanation.

The Liberals must have meetings. They must be talking to experts, because they say, “We follow the experts' advice.” How hard is it? Throw Canadians a bone. They could give us a scrap of information, or maybe put a tenth of the report on the table so that we can see that there actually is a report, but they will not. If they will not do it, we have to ask ourselves why, right?

When a child goes to school and says, “The dog ate my homework”, the teacher asks, “Show me the shredded pieces and then I will believe you.” That is what these guys are doing all the time. They are saying, “The dog ate my homework.” Well, they should show us the scraps, but we cannot even see that. They are not going to give us even that little tidbit.

Canadians are frustrated. There are a lot of Canadians who cannot travel. I do not know if members have heard the stories, but I certainly have in my riding about people who cannot travel and miss all kinds of things. The Liberals might say, “Well, get in a car.” However, an 80-year-old unvaccinated woman from my riding cannot drive 1,800 to 3,000 kilometres to B.C. The Liberals' answer is: “We do not care. We refuse to give any information on when that person is going to be able to travel. We refuse to give any information as to why we are saying that person will not be able to travel. We refuse to give any information as to when that person can travel.”

It is as though we are asking for the most unreasonable, unrealistic things. That is how the Liberals paint the debate. They cannot answer the debate directly. They cannot answer the debate forthrightly. If they really wanted to debate this issue, they would put their advice on the table so that we could all see it and debate it like adults, but they do not want to. They would rather give speeches talking about the former shadow minister for finance. They want to talk about the member for Carleton, because that is so pertinent to the debate. It is so childish and insulting to Canadians who are asking the very serious questions that we are raising in this motion to have members over there treat them with so much disdain and disrespect.

I cannot believe it. Canadians who are unable to travel, unable to visit family and relatives, are watching this debate and listening to the kinds of speeches that these people are putting out, joking and laughing about the member for Carleton. It is beyond shameful. It is embarrassing, and they should be embarrassed for participating that way.

We want things to move forward for Canadians. We want answers. We tried for a motion to ask the Liberals to put the benchmarks out for everyone to see: When we get to this, we will do this, and when we get to that, we will do that. The Liberals voted down the motion, unfortunately, with help from the NDP. We had a wonderful NDP member asking some great questions, but they voted down that motion as well, and I am disappointed about that.

We have to ask ourselves: Why will the Liberals not do any of these things? It is probably because they have not set that plan out, because this is a government that cannot do more than one thing, as we have learned. They sort of stumble from one crisis to another. We choose to joke and say: “You cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.” That is kind of what we have happening here.

Now, we are back to another motion saying, “You would not give us the benchmarks, all the rest of the world has moved forward, they are lifting all these things, so let us get on with it.” Let us get on with it. Let us actually say that this is what we are going to do.

I, of course, will be voting in favour of this motion. I know that the Liberals will not be, but I am hoping other parties will. I am hoping that other members listening today will decide not to talk about the member for Carleton and will actually stand here and debate this issue, because if they do not, it tells us exactly what we need to know about them, which is that they have nothing to offer on this subject.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, if members listened to that speech, they would think that this motion today was about providing sources of information to make decisions. It is not.

I do not know if the member is aware of what is in the motion, but I will skip right to the resolve clause, which says: “the House call on the government to immediately revert to prepandemic rules and service levels for travel.” That is it.

The motion is not asking about providing information that made us make the decision, but that is what the member spent his entire speech talking about. The motion is about pretending that the pandemic never happened, and going back, or in the Conservatives' words, “reverting” back to the way that life used to be.

Did the member read the motion before he decided to stand up and speak today?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, again we see an example of what we get with this member in particular and the current government. They do not want to have an honest debate about subjects. When I say give the information, it is because just about every time they get up to speak they talk about how they are following the science, which is why they are going to vote against this motion. It is the crux of their argument as to why they will not support the motion. They say, “We are going to follow the science, so we are not going to remove any restrictions.” However, when we ask them for that science, there is none. It is a shock. They have nothing to actually add to the debate.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening closely to today's debate—

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

I would ask the hon. members to stop having conversations while another member is asking a question.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue can restart his question.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with interest to today's debate and have been wondering something. I think it is obvious that the Liberals have failed repeatedly in terms of managing the borders and in the measures they wanted to implement over the past year, but I would like to know what the Conservatives would have done had they been in power. What kind of situation would we be in now?

We are at the tail end of a sixth wave, quite possibly because measures were put in place and they worked.

What state would the borders be in if the government were Conservative? What would they have done so differently?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot go over what we have done differently for the past two and a half years because I have only a few moments, but what I will say we would do differently right now is this. We would have released what the benchmarks are to get back to normal, because Canadians want to get back to normal. We all want to. I would release the science we are relying on to say we cannot open up now. We would say where we are, where we need to be and at what points we would remove certain restrictions.

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

Where is your science for the motion, then?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member keeps heckling and asking where my science is. We are not the government. We do not have access to the science it has at the Ministry of Health. Why will it not produce it? It probably has not done it, because it really cannot do much.