Debates of May 19th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Rules and Service Levels for Travel

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening today and in responding to the member's last comments, we have countries around the world that have lifted all restrictions, including the U.K., the U.S., Sweden, Norway and Mexico.

I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary a specific question. What specific advice are we getting from our health experts that is allowing Canada to make the decision to continue restrictions? What is the specific advice we are getting?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that ultimately each country is responsible for the safety and security of its own people. They have their own public health experts that provide them with information. We have our own public health professionals who are world-renowned scientists and researchers. We take guidance from our public health professionals, and we will continue to do so.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would agree that the Conservative Party always wants everything a little too quickly. We have seen this with the last few motions the Conservatives have moved during their opposition days, calling for all health measures to be lifted immediately. It is the same thing today.

Could some sort of compromise be reached, if the government were to submit a plan to gradually lift these measures? Would my colleague agree to that? We still have not seen a plan for a gradual lifting of health measures, and I think the public deserves to see one.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question. Our government is always ready to work with all parties in the House to come up with solutions and reach compromises. We are always ready and willing to work together.

I would therefore invite my colleague to contact me or Transport Canada.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.

I am grateful for the opportunity to address this subject today. I was very happy to see the hon. member for Thornhill's motion. There is a lot of talk in the media and from our constituents about wait times for passports and delays at the airport. People pretty much everywhere, including in my riding, are eager to get back to normal. The pandemic is winding down, and people want to start travelling and visiting sun destinations again after two difficult years.

That is why I think this is an important matter. Moreover, we have been in a pandemic for more than two years now. That has forced governments to implement measures that may have curtailed our freedoms, but that were needed because they were there to protect the health of the population.

The Conservative Party has always opposed these measures. It has constantly tried to limit their scope. We saw this with the many questions they have asked in the House since the beginning of the 44th Parliament, as well as with the opposition days they devoted to the issue, when they demanded the immediate lifting of all measures. They did not adopt a gradual approach. They really wanted to lift all measures immediately.

Although it is true that the Conservatives were pandering to libertarians on this matter, it is also true that the Liberals also did not hesitate to politicize the issue and to use unvaccinated people for political purposes. We saw this in the last election campaign. The government suddenly announced a vaccination requirement for all federal employees, while still refusing to present a plan for lifting the health measures. At every turn, the two parties accused each other of dividing the population, on the one hand with health measures, and on the other with disinformation. I think that it is crucial to avoid politicizing this issue. As members of the Bloc Québécois have said many times, the only thing we should do in this situation is listen to the science. We are not the experts. We must listen to the public health experts.

As I mentioned earlier, the member's motion addresses problems at airports. Just this past Monday, the Canadian Press reported long lineups at airports and even said that it was taking four times longer to process incoming passengers than it had before the pandemic. It seems likely that the more travellers there are, the worse the problem will get. The Conservative Party is therefore asking the government to immediately revert to prepandemic travel rules and service levels. According to the Conservatives, the problem is the restrictions, the mandates they have been condemning for months. Their solution is to lift them all.

In my opinion, the Conservative Party is misguided in laying all the blame for airport wait times on the COVID‑19 restrictions, when that is not necessarily the case. Just yesterday, the Customs and Immigration Union publicly called on the Minister of Public Safety and the Canada Border Services Agency to increase the number of border officers assigned to passenger operations at Canadian airports, in order to alleviate the pressure on both airport staff and passengers. Union president Mark Weber said that there are simply not enough officers.

These delays are a source of frustration for everyone, but the union's solution is to bring in more officers, not to get rid of measures that are designed to keep the public and travellers healthy. The union said that this situation was foreseeable, noting, “Over the past decade, the number of officers assigned to passenger operations has decreased dramatically”. At present, at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, it is estimated that fewer than 300 officers are active in the passenger operations section, which is nearly half of the number needed to process inbound travellers in a timely manner. This is not unique to Toronto, either, with both Vancouver and Montreal facing similar issues.

One sentence caught my attention in the press release I read this morning. To quote Mr. Weber:

The reality is that even with the eventual lifting of current public health measures, significant delays will likely persist, not only due to the critical shortage of officers in most border operations across the country, but also due to an over-reliance on inefficient technologies.

Mr. Weber said that an officer can process a traveller twice as fast as the automated primary inspection kiosks. Essentially, he attributes the excessive delays at the airports to the staffing shortage and the inefficient technology.

At the end of the day, these delays should come as no surprise. They were foreseeable. Mr. Weber says that we could have seen them coming for the past 10 years, having watched the situation deteriorate. What he is asking the Minister of Public Safety and the Canada Border Services Agency to do is to add more staff.

We are seeing the same issue in almost every domain. I met with representatives of the National Police Federation last week who told me the same thing: The police is short on human resources, staff and security officers, including at the borders and at airports. Lifting the health measures will not necessarily make the lines shorter. There needs to be more people on the job.

I would like to come back to paragraph (iii) of the member for Thornhill's motion, which states that several countries “have moved to lift COVID‑19 restrictions at airports and other points of entry”. That may be true, but only partially. Some countries have gone ahead and lifted all restrictions, but most still have some restrictions in place, particularly when it comes to people who are unvaccinated. For instance, the United Kingdom and Ireland have lifted most of their measures. However, in France, only fully vaccinated travellers can arrive in the country without having to be tested, and those without proof of vaccination must show a negative test upon arrival. In the U.S., our biggest partner, travellers must be fully vaccinated in order to enter the country. It is the same in Spain.

No matter what standard of comparison we use, I think that it is reasonable to say that so far, Canada has followed the science and public health advice on what should be done to protect the public. However, if anyone asked me whether the government has managed the borders properly since the start of the pandemic, I would instantly answer no.

I refer to what my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said about the Auditor General's comments on border management over the last 27 months. There is a pretty long list of things that did not go well: a lack of border testing; a failure to respond properly to emerging new variants; a lack of quarantines during peak waves; a lack of service in French from testing companies; a lack of coordination with hotels to provide accommodation for quarantining travellers, and members will recall that the chaotic quarantine situation at hotels made the headlines several times; delays in getting test results, as many people took a test and sent it in, but never got the result, leaving them unsure about their status; no follow-up for travellers who complied with their quarantine; and a lack of staff to enforce the requirement to quarantine at home.

I am not even going to delve into the passport saga because I will run out of time. Passport Canada is in total chaos right now. Call volumes have doubled or tripled because, as I said, people are itching to travel again. They realize that their passport expired and want it renewed quickly, but that is impossible because there is not enough staff. The fact that the government decided to keep these offices shut for so long, while public servants worked from home as a precaution, may also explain the current situation. In some cases, the government waited until May 17 to call employees back to work to open service points. This could have happened more quickly, considering that it has been demonstrated that certain businesses and service points could provide services to the public without endangering the workers. This government's failure to be proactive could very well explain this whole thing.

Unfortunately, we are experiencing a labour shortage, which is why I do not fully agree with all the points raised in the Conservative Party's motion.

As I said a little earlier when I asked the parliamentary secretary a question, I think we could work out a compromise instead of demanding the immediate lifting of all health measures, even it it is stressful to arrive at the airport and have to wait, and even if we are fed up with all that. We were very happy in Quebec when the mask mandate was lifted last week. I think it is still important to listen to and respect what public health experts are telling us.

I believe that the government could come up with a plan for gradually lifting the health measures. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be moving an amendment to the member for Thornhill's motion to ensure that we can find common ground.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my colleague tells her community when she is asked why the health measures at Canada's airports are different from those in other countries.

Is she aware of specific government health advice suggesting that the health measures are still effective?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is difficult to make comparisons, even within Canada. The provinces did not all have the same measures in place. Quebec was the last to lift the mask mandate. I think that it really listened to Quebeckers, while monitoring the number of cases and the number of deaths. Although these numbers are dropping, they are still high.

If we had lifted the mask mandate and other measures too quickly, we might have faced another wave. That was the case in recent months; each time we thought we saw the light at the end of the tunnel, another wave hit. I think we need to listen to what public health has to say. To a certain extent, that is what the government did. Is an update needed? Yes, absolutely. I think that we have reached that point. However, that is different from saying we need to lift all measures right now. I think it is a bit too soon, despite the fact that, as I mentioned, we are all tired of the measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to hear the member for Thornhill answer the question the member concluded her speech with, which was about whether or not the Conservatives are open to the idea of gradually phasing in some kind of plan.

I am wondering if my colleague from the Bloc can comment on that. If such a plan were to be developed, would she expect it to be done in close consultation with public health officials so that it comes from a place of science and proper data and they inform the concept she is recommending?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely necessary to do that, not only in consultation with the experts, but also by listening to what the experts have to say. That is what we have done in recent months.

I will take the liberty of comparing Canada’s management with Quebec’s. The Quebec government held almost daily press conferences to explain the situation, the next steps and the reasons why some measures needed to remain in place, while providing assurance that the situation could gradually get better. I saw less of that at the federal level. There is a lot of uncertainty among the public, and people keep asking for clear information.

We still witnessed a wave of solidarity: 83% of Quebecers are vaccinated, compared to approximately 82% of Canadians. These are great numbers relative to other countries. People made the effort, and what the government owes them in return is a bit of transparency and a long-term vision. It would be nice to give the public that.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a bit about transparency and sharing information. Just recently, I asked the parliamentary secretary a pretty straightforward question about a review that is under way. I asked when that review will be completed and how the information from that review will be shared with the Canadian public. She answered with the same old mantra that had nothing to do with the question.

Does the hon. member agree with me that this sort of mantra-based public policy actually erodes public trust at a time when we need to be strengthening it more than ever?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to set an example and show solidarity as elected members. We can sympathize with our constituents, tell them we understand the problems they face and that we, too, are tired of it all.

Spreading information that is not necessarily wrong but that is completely different on one side and the other divides people or, in any case, certainly does not unite them. It might not be the best way to handle things.

If we had a somewhat less partisan approach based on the opinion of public health experts, I think it would benefit everyone.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling my colleague from Thornhill that I think she is a very dynamic person and that I think highly of her. I hope she will not take offence at the comments I am about to make.

On the last Bloc opposition day, my Conservative colleagues talked a lot about the relevance of our motion, which had to do with prayer. They wondered why we had raised that subject at a time when no one was talking about prayer and when, in their opinion, we should have been talking about inflation and gas prices.

I am therefore surprised that my Conservative colleagues have not put forward any motions on gas prices or inflation on their last two opposition days. I do not hold it against them, but I would like to do the same for them. I may not talk about the relevance of their motion, but I would like to talk about their intent. What is my Conservative colleagues' intention? What is motivating them today to call on the government to immediately revert to pre‑pandemic rules and service levels for travel?

First, I believe that, before we can immediately revert to prepandemic rules, we must necessarily rely on public health guidance. Here, I would like to make a first distinction. On the one hand, there is the science and public health objectives, which involve establishing truths that are sometimes difficult to establish, especially during a pandemic. On the other hand, there is political partisanship or the desire to promote a political ideology, which often involves advancing a political agenda.

In my view, the purpose of the motion before us today is to advance the political agenda of the Conservatives rather than really determining whether the public health situation permits a full reopening and the lifting of certain measures.

I do not want to hurt the feelings of my Conservative friends, because, after all, I am a caring person. That said, the reason why I am talking about the Conservative political agenda is because I think that there is a phenomenon that is plaguing my Conservatives colleagues, and that is populism. There seems to be a form of populism embedded in Conservative Party rhetoric, and the proof of that is in the favourite topics of the member for Carleton, whom I admire. In the cut and thrust of debate, the member for Carleton is exciting and interesting, and we want to hear him, but, unfortunately, the issues that he brings up often relate to some form of populism. I am thinking of all his speeches about the need to take back control of our lives. I will come back to that later.

I do not know what other people are going through, but I for one have not lost control of my life. I may have lost control of my weight, but sooner or later I will be able to get that back under control. However, I have not lost control of my life.

I am also thinking of that word “justinflation” that the member for Carleton is always mentioning, and, of course, his rhetoric about freedom. Shouting “freedom” four or five times does not necessarily imply an understanding of that concept. I could refer to some concepts of freedom—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very much enjoy the speech that is being given, so I regret to interrupt, but the member did refer to a term that, at least in English, you have ruled to be out of order, and that is using the Prime Minister's name in conjunction with the word “inflation”. At least, through the translation, it came across in the way it is regularly used.

Perhaps the member could rephrase that.

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

I believe we have already said a few times that that word is not allowed in the House.

The hon. member for Jonquière may continue.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a judicious intervention. I apologize for offending my colleague. It is an unflattering play on the word inflation and the Prime Minister's name that I feel conveys that populism.

Before I go on, I would like to define the word “populism”. Generally speaking, it is a style of politics that divides by attempting to simplify issues and amplify antagonism. It is us versus them. In this particular case, there are travellers on one side and the government on the other. A simplistic interpretation is that the government is preventing travellers from moving freely and that all it has to do is change the rules to solve the problem. That is simplistic because we know this is a public health issue.

When we talk about populism, we can also say that we are talking about personalized speech and behaviour that relies on rhetoric that combines utopia and demagoguery. In an ideal world, we are not affected by the pandemic. It does not affect us, and everyone can come and go as they please. If we were to take a demagogic approach, we would say that all of the border crossings can be reopened tomorrow morning, and there will be no problems. Generally, this sort of thing is done to pander to the people and pit them against the elite. The travellers, the people, the truckers, to use a term dear to my colleague from Carleton, have a view of society that is against the elite. That is populism.

Populists usually condemn institutions that do not sufficiently consider the public's aspirations. The government and public health do not care about the aspirations of the average person. Populists characterize political opponents as elites who care very little about the ideas of the people and popular common sense. Generally, when it comes to populism, the truth is in popular common sense.

That sets the table for a debate which, in my opinion, is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today: the democracy of opinion. Those of us who know a bit about philosophy make that distinction. On the one hand there is opinion and doxa and, on the other, episteme, the sciences. Opinion is based on appearance. You say “it appears to me that,” without having checked the facts. On the other hand, science involves a deeper reflection.

I feel that that is what today’s debate is about. Conservatives are saying that it appears that the measures in airports are far too restrictive and that we are further along in the pandemic, but they have not taken care to consult a public health expert.

I said that I wanted to help my Conservative colleagues, who are poisoned by populism. I would like to cite Pierre Rosanvallon, an author I particularly like. When he speaks of populism, he says we must beware of the “threefold populist simplification”.

I would like to explain what threefold simplification means using my friend and colleague from Carleton. First, according to Pierre Rosanvallon, there is political and sociological simplification, where “the people” is a defined homogeneous subject. Considering the people a defined homogenous subject is the same as saying “Canadians think that”; for example, all Canadians think that we should immediately lift all measures in airports. It defines the people as different from the elite, in other words, from other politicians who think differently, as if the people were a monolith. On the one hand, there are truckers and unvaccinated people and, on the other, a form of elite that is completely disconnected from reality and that is hostile to freedom.

There is also, according to Pierre Rosanvallon, procedural and institutional simplification. This involves attacking institutions and politicians who think differently. I will give you an interesting example. My colleagues may have followed the debate between the hon. member for Carleton and Jean Charest. In the debate, my colleague from Carleton said to Jean Charest, “to hear you talk about law and order is a bit rich, given that your party, your [Quebec] Liberal Party, took a half-million dollars of illegal donations when you were the head of that party. The average trucker has more integrity in his pinky finger than you had in your entire...Liberal cabinet.”

We can see here that this is a populist discourse that attacks, in a manner of speaking, populist adversaries.

Let us take this a bit further, and consider what we heard from the hon. member for Abbotsford, who finds that what our friend from Carleton is doing on cryptocurrency is entirely inconsequential. Moreover, in response to a recent direct attack on institutions by the hon. member for Carleton and his threat to dismiss the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the hon. member for Abbotsford said, “We lose some credibility when we do this. It is fair to ask questions, to demand solutions to the skyrocketing cost of living. But we also have to respect the institutions that have been granted independence to ensure that they function apart from political interference.”

Members can then see a dynamic that reflects the lowest form of populism, which can even lead a member to call our colleague from Carleton to order.

I will conclude by addressing simplification that arises from populism. The hon. member for Carleton said in the House, “We are going to give Canadians their freedom back and make them the authors of their own stories. That is the approach we will take as Conservatives. Everybody has their story, and the story that I am hearing right now is that people feel like they are losing control of their lives.”

In my opinion, this is what is poisoning my Conservative colleagues in today’s debate: They want to make people believe that institutions are preventing them from taking control of their lives, and they are doing it to the detriment of science. It is a very dangerous game.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, in which he took multiple shots at the concept of populism.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that hundreds of sovereignist voters in Quebec who vote for the Bloc Québécois often ask the same questions as Conservatives on issues like the vaccine mandate and airport management. There are a large number of Bloc supporters on social media who are asking the same questions Conservative voters do. Is asking questions strictly a Conservative trait, or do sovereignists do that too?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's thoughts were poorly expressed. A person can ask questions whether they are a member of the Bloc, a Conservative, a papist or whatever else, but those questions have to be rational. We need to listen to the science.

You can please somebody by saying that global warming does not exist and that they can keep burning gas until the end of time and nothing will ever happen to them. I have people asking me about the price of gas, but I think it is important to be honest with them and answer them in a reasonable way.

Populists do the opposite and present simple solutions to complex problems. A public health issue like COVID-19 is complex, so we cannot just propose a simple solution like lifting all restrictions. I often hear people calling for an end to the mandates, but that is completely irrational and does not follow the science. That is what I wanted to explain to my colleague.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the theme of the opposition motion before us today and ask my colleague a more philosophical question.

In his opinion, from a scientific perspective, where does the burden of proof fall with regard to the effectiveness of public health measures? Does it fall on the government, who imposes those measures, or on those who challenge them? Does he think the burden of proof has been met?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we need to listen to science, but pandemic science is not a monolith. There is not one united opinion and many experts disagree. It is up to the government to sift through the opinions, but it is certainly not required to base its decisions solely on the rumblings of some people who feel that their freedom is being violated by the restrictions on travel and on how we live our lives.

We need to listen to what scientists are telling us. Not too long ago, people were told that smoking was good for their health; cigarettes were associated with sports. We need to keep listening to science, because if we only listen to our first instincts then our society would be more or less unsustainable.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member for Jonquière agrees that to move away from populism and to unify Canadians, it is better to employ Canadians. Is it better to create and implement a plan to hire more screening officers to reduce wait times?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the evidence does show is that we need to increase screening measures. I agree with my colleague that all members in the House need to do some soul-searching and move away from populism, which is eating away at our democracy and plays too big of a role in our debates. I think that is the best short-term solution.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech on populism was very interesting, but I want to talk about what was happening, for example, this weekend in Montreal and at the airport. It is hard for constituents to understand. When they go to the airport and realize they need a mask, they have to go back to get a mask, and then they go through all these checks that they do not normally have to go through. How does the member explain to his constituents why, when they are outside of the airport, they do not need a mask, because the Quebec government says it is safe, but inside the airport they do?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

What a mind-boggling question, Mr. Speaker. What does this mean? Does it mean that every restriction that people do not understand must be lifted? If someone wants to drive at 200 kilometres per hour because they think that they are a good driver, should we remove speed limits because this person does not understand that there are restrictions in society? I cannot believe that question.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Vancouver Kingsway this morning.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak about the situation in our major airports, a situation that I think by now pretty much every Canadian across the country is familiar with. It is a situation that is chaotic, and it is a situation that is having real impacts on a lot of people.

For over two years, Canadians were asked to put off travel plans. They could not visit family members; they missed major life events; they had to cancel long-awaited holidays; they could not travel to other parts of Canada or other parts of the world. People made significant sacrifices to protect each other, to protect their loved ones and to protect their communities. They helped buy time for frontline health workers before we had vaccines, and they kept it up when new variants emerged and threatened to derail our collective efforts. The vast majority of Canadians did their part, and for that they deserve our thanks.

With many restrictions now lifted, people are excited to travel again, which is understandable, and they are returning to our airports in huge numbers. Last week, an average of 120,000 travellers went through our major airports each day. That is a huge number, but once at the airports, they are being stuck in long screening lines. Planes are stuck on the tarmac without passengers able to leave. People are missing flights, and much more. Of course, people are rightly frustrated by this situation. These delays are creating stress and anxiety for travellers and they need to be addressed. This situation was foreseeable. It has been going on for weeks and the government needs to fix it.

Why is this happening? As we heard at the transport committee from the Canadian Airports Council, the biggest factor is staffing, especially the lack of screening personnel needed to move passengers through security. Screening capacity is a federal responsibility through the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, CATSA.

Like many sectors of our economy, aspects of the air transport sector have struggled to rehire employees laid off earlier in the pandemic, and we have heard about that challenge in today's debate already. As the hospitality industry has experienced, some staff simply are not available to hire back because they have moved on to other positions with better work conditions, better compensation and better terms of employment. The minister needs to ensure that the terms of employment related to these positions, the positions at our airports that are needed to screen passengers, are adequate to attract and retain the skilled workforce that we need to ensure safe air travel for all those who fly.

The other issue, of course, is the fact that the pandemic is still very much with us, and it is hard to maintain staffing levels when employees are catching COVID and leaving work because they are sick.

The government should have been able to predict that these challenges would emerge. It should have hired sufficient staff, and if it struggled to find people to do the work, it should have reviewed the terms of those positions to ensure that they are competitive and able to attract and retain the people it needs.

The Liberal government first announced it was relaxing travel restrictions on February 15, with mandatory arrival testing and quarantine scrapped at the end of February. Liberals were happy to go around saying how exciting it was that travel was back and Canada was reopening in time for the tourism season, but over three months have passed since those announcements, and it is clear that the government has not done enough to ensure that our airports are ready. Now Canadians are facing the consequences of the government's mismanagement and lack of preparedness. This was entirely avoidable. It should have been anticipated and it needs to be fixed.

We have seen the same mishandling from the government with passport applications. I am sure everyone in the House has heard from constituents who are facing incredibly lengthy delays and long lines at Service Canada offices because the government failed to anticipate an increase in demand for travel when the restrictions were relaxed. The same folks who were left scrambling to get their passports on time a few weeks ago are now at the airport experiencing long lines at security screening. They are frustrated and anxious because of the delays they are seeing.

Instead of acknowledging the government’s failure to prepare, the transport minister had the audacity to blame the travellers themselves, saying that it was their lack of practice and the slowness with which they took the liquids out of their bags that were leading to these long delays at the airport. Frankly, that is offensive.

Shifting to the riding I represent, I am particularly mindful of tourism operators in northwest B.C. and across Canada, who have looked forward to a season of welcoming back clientele from across Canada and around the world. I think of operators in the Bulkley Valley, the Bella Coola Valley, Haida Gwaii and Prince Rupert. They are looking forward to finally getting their business back, and the last thing they need is their clients hearing that travelling to Canada is a hassle because of the delays at our airports. That is going to hurt the tourism business right across Canada, and it needs to be addressed.

The Conservatives have brought this forward because they see a very particular opportunity in this crisis, which is the opportunity to once again try their hand at removing every health measure, every restriction and every tool we have to protect Canadians and safeguard our country against future waves of the virus. We disagree with that approach.

We disagree because the pandemic is still very much with us and because there are some public health measures, we believe, that are likely still advisable for the ongoing protection of Canadians and the detection of the virus at our border. Most of all, we disagree because we believe important public health measures should be informed by public health science, not by politics.

The motion before us makes the claim that Canada’s international allies are removing all travel restrictions. Simply put, that is not the case. Just to the south of us, the United States still requires a predeparture COVID test. That is more restrictive than here in Canada. Almost every country requires proof of vaccination to enter. Saying that our international allies are lifting all restrictions is simply not accurate.

We have an opportunity to strike a balance between enabling the mobility of Canadians and keeping in place tools that allow us to respond to future public health threats. The question is, do the current pandemic travel measures strike the right balance? Are they defensible? Are they based on the best available evidence? How are they better than other, similar measures that have been proposed as alternatives? This is where the blame goes back to the Liberal government, which has been less than forthcoming of late when it comes to these pandemic measures.

In fact, the NDP wrote to Dr. Tam in March and called on her to conduct a full re-evaluation of Canada’s pandemic measures and report back to Canadians. The letter from the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Elmwood—Transcona simply highlighted that creating trust in public health measures requires explaining the arguments and sharing the evidence on which they are based.

I have asked questions on this topic in this very debate today. I have asked the government to tell us when it will be reporting back from its review and how that information will be shared with Canadians, yet we do not get a response.

The questions are growing. Just last week, infectious disease expert Dr. Zain Chagla from McMaster University published an article stating that, in his view, Canada’s “current rules for travel do not make sense”. A few days ago, a Globe and Mail editorial asked whether the measures in place are still needed.

The government needs to be more transparent with Canadians about the evidence behind any remaining public health measures. It needs to clearly communicate the data and the science informing these decisions. The government needs to stand up and answer. The truth is that it has become less transparent and less forthcoming precisely at a time in the pandemic when the public needs answers more than ever.

It was not always this way. We remember the beginning of the pandemic, when Canadians received in-depth explanations of every measure and the evidence justifying it. The result was high public trust, high compliance with restrictions and guidelines, and a sense that we were all pulling in the same direction.

The situation at the airports is frustrating. People who are having their travel plans cancelled are under extreme stress. The government should have seen this coming and it should have fixed it. We need more answers and more transparency from the Liberal government.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague was dissatisfied with my response to his previous question about reviewing public health measures at airports. I would like to clarify that a review of measures is ongoing and constant. Health Canada is always reassessing the latest public health data to better dictate our decision-making at airports. There is no completion date, as this is ongoing. It will also likely vary depending upon the scientific measure: vaccine mandates, masking, random testing, etc.

What would my colleague do differently? Would he set an arbitrary date for when measures should be lifted, or should it be as soon as possible as new data is assessed?