Jennifer O'Connell

[Health, April 22nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, let me start where my hon. colleague left off regarding the approval process and our regulators at Health Canada.

The member spoke about Canadians needing to trust, understand and feel hope. While I have a lot of respect for the member opposite as a parliamentarian and I know he has a role to play, I think the diatribe he just went through is quite detrimental to helping Canadians feel safe and secure about our institutions, and in particular about the independent regulators of Health Canada.

If his constituents mistrust the media, again, he has a very important role to play in providing them with resources based on science and fact. There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there. Frankly, there are a lot of conspiracy theories rampant within the Conservative Party and among members in the House. In fact, one of them was removed from the Conservative Party because he seemed to have gone too far. However, there are others in the party who seem to be okay with conspiracy theories.

It is incredibly important that as parliamentarians we demonstrate to Canadians the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and that we have trust in our health regulators. Health Canada is world-renown.

The member opposite spoke about the timing of the approvals of vaccines. That was not without significant investments into Health Canada and human resources. Health Canada officials worked around the clock to ensure that as vaccines were being developed, they were prepared to receive information and review it, given the global pandemic we are facing. In fact, all of the approved drugs in Canada went through a regular review process. We simply put in place measures to speed up that process given the pandemic.

If we look at hours to hours when it comes to the regulatory review process, they were comparable. Thank God we have the dedicated public servants we do. They put in the incredible work so that as soon as the pharmaceutical companies were ready with vaccines, they could come forward to our world-renown regulator and get the process going.

When it comes to Trikafta, we were waiting for the company to put forward an application, which it has now done. We are very happy for that. I know that many Canadians are looking forward to that process. Frankly, there are a number of things that the pandemic has demonstrated regarding how we can take some of the lessons learned moving forward to put in place even better systems.

When it comes to misinformation or disinformation from the Conservative Party, I hope the member opposite will convey to his constituents how safe and effective the vaccines are. They are going to be a major contributor to getting ourselves out of the pandemic so that Canadians can be safe and healthy again.

[Government Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, April 21st, 2021]

Madam Speaker, what we must also remember in this chamber is truth and honesty, of which there was a lot lacking in that speech. While I am on that, the member referred to the U.K. and said that vaccinations would have prevented all these lockdowns. However, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom actually acknowledged that, when they saw cases increasing in the third wave, it was lockdowns and strict public health measures that allowed them to continue to vaccinate and allowed the vaccinations to do their work.

Weeks ago, members opposite moved and supported motions to open up the economy and ignore public health, just open everything up. In addition, the health critic for the Conservatives wanted us to remove our strict quarantine measures at the border for people entering this country and applauded those who challenge those measures in court.

Would the member please let us know if she still supports removing the border measures and lifting all restrictions despite public health being against it?

[Government Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, April 21st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned rapid tests. We have distributed 25.4 million rapid tests and there are millions that have gone unused, so I would encourage him to ask the premiers, provinces and territories to use them.

The member talked about mistakes being made, so my question is with respect to his credibility and that of his party. His party has suggested that we end the border measures we put in place to protect communities. It also recommended weeks ago that we should simply ignore public health measures and open everything up. We have seen what happened in Ontario when those public health models were ignored.

Does the member opposite still support removing the restrictions at borders? Does he still support opening everything up and ignoring the public health advice?

[Government Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, April 21st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging the great work the member and his team do in getting really relevant, truthful information out through his social media feed. For Ontario it has been really helpful.

I have been listening to the debate tonight, and some members, in particular from the Conservative Party, have pointed to other countries that are opening up. He got a question of that nature tonight. I would like to point out that we see our friends and colleagues in Atlantic Canada, such as our friend from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, going to restaurants. Things are opening up. The Atlantic bubble has done quite well, and on a per-capita basis it has received fewer vaccines. However, it has all the same federal restrictions in place.

Perhaps the issue is that continuing to work with the provinces and territories, which is the spirit of this debate, is about learning within Canada from the premiers and provinces that have done quite a good job. We see their economies opening up and we see their vaccinations continuing.

[Government Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, April 21st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, so I genuinely want to discuss his ideas around the Emergencies Act. I share several of his concerns with respect to my home province of Ontario, which we are seeing every day.

I am curious about is this. I know the minister earlier in her speech spoke about some of the work we were doing with the provinces. We are working together collaboratively with provinces and territories right now and I worry that if we implement something like this, it would impede the provincial government's responsibilities? What if the Province of Ontario disagreed and decided instead to challenge this use in the court? Would that not be a terrible use of time in the middle of a pandemic instead of working collaboratively with the provinces?

[Health, April 20th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, what I think constitutes homophobia is the member opposite's Conservative Party. The fact is the only members in the House voting against banning conversion therapy are Conservatives.

The member can make fake accusations against me or members of this party, but those are all she has. What Canadians can see plain and clear is the homophobia that is rampant in the Conservative Party. The fact that Conservatives are the only members who have actually voted against banning conversion therapy demonstrates that. Canadians will not be fooled.

What is code for the member opposite's comment is that the Conservative Party is trying to hide or spin the fact that it has members who have, just in the last week, had to apologize for damaging, hurtful statements.

We are committed to ending the blood ban. It is something the Conservative Party did not do in 10 years.

[Health, April 20th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that the hon. member ought to turn around in her own caucus. If she wants to begin to disband homophobia in her own party, that might be one place to start.

When it comes to the blood ban, we agree it is discriminatory. That is why our government, from day one, provided the funding for Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec to address and provide the studies that are needed.

The member opposite well knows that the federal government alone cannot implement this change. It requires parties coming together. That is exactly why we provided the funding for the studies to take place: so that Héma-Québec and Canadian Blood Services could put forward an application to the Government of Canada. We are eagerly awaiting that application so that we can end this discriminatory practice.

While we are on the subject of discrimination, I would like to point out to the member opposite that just last weekend, her own colleagues attended a pro-life conference where they strategized on how to put forward legislation to ban and restrict health care for trans Canadians. Perhaps the member opposite, in her advocacy, should start with her own party.

Let us also talk about the continued homophobia that exists in her party. In the debate on banning conversion therapy, a member recently had to apologize for referring to homosexuals as “unclean”. Her own caucus member had to apologize.

We fully support, and have committed to, ending the blood ban. I would also point out that the member opposite was a member of the Harper government. In 10 years, the former Conservative government did not do a single thing to move forward on lifting the blood ban.

I am quite curious. At what point did the member opposite have this awakening? She could have done a lot as a member of the government for 10 years. We did not wait. We started this process. We look forward to the application. I look forward to the passion of the member opposite in fighting discrimination and homophobia in her own caucus.

[Sex-Selective Abortion Act, April 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, normally I would say I am happy to rise in this chamber, but on this topic I could not be more disappointed. I am disappointed, as a woman in this country in this day and age, to be once again faced with Conservatives attempting to take away long-fought, long-established women's rights. Members should make no mistake about this. I guarantee nobody in this House supports sex-selective abortions, but that is precisely not what the member has intended with this legislation.

Just this past weekend, members of the Conservative party and their staff gathered with the Pro-Life Association to strategize on and discuss how to get backdoor anti-abortion legislation in this country to take away women's rights. In addition to that, they were referring to MAID and amendments there as an example. According to one article, they said this is “a 'very powerful first step and foundation' to introducing conscience rights in other areas, like targeting abortion or denying access to medical services for trans people.”

These are the values that this Conservative party represents, and I am ashamed. In this day and age there should be no debate. The last speaker said they wish there could be a debate, but the debate on women's rights is over. We are equal, and governments do not make decisions on our health and on our bodies.

There is no law or power that any government has to control decisions on the male body, so if members of the Conservative party want to talk about equality, then this debate is over. Let us work on abolishing inequality in this country, but a woman's right to choose is fundamental, and government has no place and no business in that decision.

[Sex-Selective Abortion Act, April 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, nobody would support sex-selective abortion. However, that is not what this bill is and the member knows it. Ninety per cent of abortions that take place in the country are within the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy when we cannot even determine sex. This is just another example of Conservatives who just recently got together to strategize on how to create backdoor anti-abortion legislation.

If the bill is truly only about banning sex-selective abortions, then why did her own leader come out saying that he did not support it and that he would vote against it? If it is truly not a backdoor way to remove women's rights, why does her own leader not support it?

[Health, April 12th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, that is the point. The government has relied on the best available science and data. We cannot just transmit one plan to the next. We have to be able to adjust based on, in this case, the virus to ensure that the plan and the process that we are moving forward with is the most relevant to the pandemic with which we are dealing. That is why relying on the best science, the best data and listening to experts is the best approach for Canadians. As a result, we have seen jurisdictions adjust accordingly. We are always going to rely on evidence, science and innovation and techniques of data collection, which is going to help get us out of this pandemic.