Peter Fragiskatos

[Emergencies Act, February 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

We have reached a critical point, a fork in the road, in the history of Canadian democracy, and that needs to be acknowledged. There is no Canadian exceptionalism. If there is not any American exceptionalism, and we know that is one of the founding myths of the United States in terms of its democracy, it is also true that it is a founding myth of this country. However, that myth has been exposed. There is nothing inevitable about Canadian democracy. There is nothing guaranteed about it. The past few weeks have shown that.

At the outset, before going into my remarks, let me thank law enforcement, here on the Hill, the Parliamentary Protective Service, for all the work they have done to ensure our security, also law enforcement, all law enforcement but especially in Ottawa those who have travelled from London. They have been here and they have been in Windsor in recent weeks. I deeply thank them for their service.

The Emergencies Act is an extraordinary measure, it is true. Introduced in 1988, it has never been used. I heard my colleague opposite's remarks. I have great respect for him. We served on the finance committee together for a time. I have to take issue with many of his remarks, especially when he said that the Emergencies Act confers onto the government martial law powers. That is an extraordinary way to look at it. It is also the wrong way to look at it.

As we know, and as the government has made clear, the Emergencies Act is subject to the charter, it is time limited, and it is geographically focused. On top of that and, interestingly, I have not heard very much from the Conservative Party on this, the act itself was introduced by a Progressive Conservative government in 1988 under Prime Minister Mulroney and under defence minister Perrin Beatty.

The debates on that act are very interesting. People could go back in the Hansard and look at them. Time and again it was emphasized by that Conservative government that the charter is sacrosanct. There was an attempt at that time to ensure that the infringements of civil liberties that had taken place under the War Measures Act in World War I, in World War II and in the October crisis of 1970 would not be repeated.

When I hear my colleagues talk about the Emergencies Act in the way that they do, as martial law or as war measures, there is nothing to that. If we are going to disagree, that is fine, but let us at least agree on a shared set of facts in order to have a meaningful discussion.

For the purposes of the act, I would remind my colleagues, if they have not read the act itself and it sounds as if they have not on the opposite side, unfortunately, that under the act:

A national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.

Let us break that down to see if that first condition has been met, the “health or safety of Canadians.” For the residents of Ottawa, life has been completely upended in the past few weeks, seniors unable to go get groceries, families unable to take their kids to school and people unable to get to work, among other deep challenges. This is a crisis. Challenge does not even begin to describe what the people of Ottawa have faced.

On top of that, “the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.” We heard yesterday, very clearly, from Ottawa's interim police chief, Steve Bell, who made it very clear that the Emergencies Act has been instrumental in the success that police have made over the past couple of days in terms of dealing with the challenge of the convoy and everything it represents, and pushing it back.

On top of that, we have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who have come out very strongly and agreed with the government's position on invoking the Emergencies Act.

The Mayor of Ottawa made clear, time and again, that his government lacked the resources to deal with the crisis.

The Premier of Ontario has made the same comment. The Premier of Ontario, a Conservative premier, has been very clear that he agrees with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Under the act, I believe that section 3 paragraph (a), in terms of the definition of what an emergency constitutes, has been met. Section 3 paragraph (b) talks about an emergency being when there is a serious threat to “the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity” of the country.

We have seen several border point crossings blockaded over many days. Borders are about many things. These vital crossings ensure economic security for our country. They ensure jobs for people. When they were blockaded, people could not get to work. They were temporarily laid off. More than that, I think we have to understand borders in terms of sovereignty and security. A country that is unable to control its borders because of a blockade has a threat to its sovereignty in place and a threat to its security in place and a threat to its people's security in place, so for that reason, I believe the condition in paragraph (b) has been met.

The government has elaborated that in the acts there are various ways an emergency is understood. What we have in front of us is a public order emergency. In the act, that is defined as “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state”.

It is that latter part that is crucial: “achieving a political, religious or ideological objective”. The convoy's organizers had as one of their principal motives the overthrow of a democratically elected government. This was their ideological objective. For that reason I think the government's position that this meets the definition of a public order emergency is exactly right.

I want to put my view on the record on why I think the invocation of the Emergencies Act is quite correct. Let me now deal with some broader issues in the abstract.

First of all, regarding freedom and democracy in the charter, I absolutely agree that these are sacrosanct values that underpin our democracy. The charter is, in many ways, the founding document of Canada, even though it was only introduced in 1982. Many observers have made the quite correct argument that Canada only really became an independent country in 1982, because that is when the charter was put in place. This document, as we know, ensures freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Without those freedoms, Canadians are not free. They ensure our ability as legislators to discuss and debate the issues of the day. They ensure the ability of our constituents to stand up and either agree or disagree. They ensure the ability of the press to carry out its work. How tragic and sad it has been to see that journalists have been treated in the way they have been. Maybe I will get to that if I have time a little later.

Crucial to the charter, and the part that so many forget to pay attention to, is that section 1 makes clear there are limits to these freedoms. In section 1, there is a guarantee of “rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

I hear, for example, my colleagues opposite, especially in the Conservative Party, talk about how the government has upended the freedom of Canadians. When I hear convoy participants—and I will not call them “protesters”, because what they did is not a protest; it is more of an occupation—say that the government has violated the charter, it becomes difficult to take seriously that they have taken section 1 seriously. Section 1 makes clear these limits.

During a pandemic the government is quite right to introduce vaccine mandates, which, fair enough, could get in the way of some freedom, but there are limits on that. Peaceful assembly is not what we saw, and there is a reasonable limit in terms of—

[Emergencies Act, February 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I think the member did a very good job of outlining why these measures are justified.

I want to ask her a question about what will happen after in terms of combatting hate, and what members of this House, across party lines, can do to do just that. We have seen hate expressed by the alt-right in the United States in recent years, and evidently it has made its way northward, unfortunately.

What can we do, collectively as elected officials in the House, to work together to fight hate? We have seen its effect in London, clearly.

[Old Age Security Act, February 15th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear from the member opposite. We are discussing a bill relating to seniors tonight.

I have a question for the member. Does he still agree with his party's position, which apparently has not evolved, at least not that I am aware of, that the age of eligibility for OAS should be 67, which they changed it to a number of years ago under the Harper government, or should it in fact be 65, which is what this government restored it to? What does he think about that?

[Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has done incredible work over the years as the chair of the seniors caucus. I wonder if she could share with the House the way that work has informed her understanding of the bill and how the bill would impact seniors in her riding.

[Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke well, as he always does. He is one of the youngest members in this House, if I am not mistaken, but he is also one of the most thoughtful I have had the chance to work with.

That is why I was surprised, when he spoke about inflation, that there was no reference made to the global situation and putting inflation in a global context, the way the pandemic, for example, has impacted supply chains around the world and the effect that has had for countries like Canada, in terms of inflation. I know the member will make reference to quantitative easing and the impact that has had, but at best, according to most economists, that impact has been minimal, in terms of inflation in Canada.

Why not focus on the global reality, in terms of its impact on inflation?

[Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is modest, so she did not point out the incredibly important work she has done to advance diabetes research in Canada. London is home to Sir Frederick Banting. Of course, those who know anything about the history of diabetes will know the important work that he did to advance insulin. So many have benefited from that.

Where I am going with this is that I wonder if the member could outline for us the way that a measure like this will help not just seniors but the seniors living with diabetes whom she has helped for so long.

[Emergencies Act, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the past few weeks have made clear that our democracy can be, and is being, threatened. Constituents are rightly asking what the federal government is doing on their behalf.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act is an extraordinary measure, but one that is justified by the current circumstances. Certain extra powers will be given to the federal government so that it can help bring the crisis to an end. These powers will be time-limited and subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Crucially, the military will not play an enforcement role.

I know that constituents want to help counter extremism because the government cannot solve this on its own. To them, I say do not despair. They could volunteer for a local non-profit focused on a cause they care about, condemn hate and the mistreatment of journalists, speak up against misinformation, join a political party that best reflects their values, volunteer for a political candidate they believe in and, most of all, show kindness. Kindness builds trust, and trust between citizens is what ultimately holds democracy together.

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his service. I do not know him that well, but I have always known him to be someone who cares very sincerely about the work and who has done a great deal for his constituents.

On this matter, we will disagree a bit. If we look at what the federal government has done since the onset of the pandemic, it responded very swiftly. It made historic efforts to put in place policy to deal with what is, I think we can all agree, the most difficult situation that has faced this country since the Second World War. Whether it is tourism operators or small or large businesses, we will continue to be there for Canadians as we have been throughout the pandemic, putting in place a number of measures, economic and otherwise, to meet the challenges head-on.

In my own community of London, we have been there whether for tourism operators or others. There is more we can do, of course, and we can look at that, but when it is all said and done, historians will have a lot to say on what has happened, and we will have favourable judgments in the years to come.

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, words like “hypocrisy” have to be used very carefully, if at all, in this House. I think it is important to maintain basic decorum. I do not know the member very well, but I would hope he would live up to the honour of the office that he holds.

The health minister is doing exactly as we would hope. He is looking at the science and listening to the health experts. On the specific matter of what is happening at the border, our policy evolves. It evolves because as the pandemic evolves, so too does policy. That is something that has been clear throughout the pandemic. At every step the government has consulted with health experts before putting policy in place.

I wish that some in this House would believe in science, listen to it and listen to the health experts. We would be in much more agreement if that were the case.

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

I am very proud tonight to rise and speak on behalf of our side to Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. I am thankful for giving the bill the attention and priority that is required.

As members are aware, we have committed through this bill to continue our support of provinces and territories, workplace and not-for-profit organizations in managing the pandemic. In particular, the bill seeks to make rapid tests readily available for the purposes of early detection of COVID-19 positive cases and mitigating the transmission of the virus. I will first speak about regulatory approval of tests.

Since the start of the pandemic, Health Canada has put in place rapid, innovative and agile measures through interim orders to ensure prompt access to medical devices and to respond to the needs of Canadians. Canada has one of the most highly regarded regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the world. Health Canada's consistent approach throughout the pandemic has ensured that testing devices available in Canada have been high performing and reliable.

Health Canada has made it a priority to review applications for COVID-19 devices that meet an urgent public health need in Canada. Manufacturers of these devices must provide sufficient data to support the intended use, including the sensitivity established for the specific test. Tests that do not meet high standards of sensitivity values are not authorized for use, and Canada is one of the few countries with minimal post-market issues, including recalls.

As of the beginning of February, in fact, Health Canada has authorized 107 testing devices, including 10 self-tests and 27 tests that can be used in a point-of-care setting. Working with our public health partners, we have identified testing technologies that are the highest priority for evaluation at this time. Additionally, based on the information available to date, the authorized tests continue to be effective in detecting variants. Canada is also taking a proactive role by contacting manufacturers of self-tests that have been authorized in other jurisdictions and inviting them to submit applications for approval in Canada, and more self-testing applications are currently under evaluation by Health Canada.

To advance regulatory approval of new COVID-19 tests, the regulator has approved over 100 clinical trials for COVID-19 products, many of which benefited from flexible approaches, ultimately helping to identify promising COVID-19 therapies sooner. In addition, it has leveraged its rapport with international regulators to share information on emerging technologies in the context of the rapid evolution of the virus while aligning and collaborating on regulatory and policy approaches. As new tests become available and approved for use in Canada, Health Canada works with provincial and territorial officials to acquire and distribute them.

There is also something to be said about biomanufacturing in this country. In order to secure a better supply of testing devices, it is essential that Canada increase its domestic biomanufacturing capacity. Investments in biomanufacturing capacity will reduce our reliance on imported products, strengthen our domestic industrial capacity and increase the resilience of our nation for years to come.

Budget 2021 made the government's commitment to the biomanufacturing sector clear with a $2.2-billion investment over the next seven years. The regulator is doing its part to support this as it recognizes that the strength of our regulatory system is an important consideration for companies looking to establish a Canadian presence. In fact, as of January 14 of this year, the Government of Canada purchased 30 million rapid tests from Artron Laboratories in Burnaby, British Columbia. These tests have been procured to fulfill immediate, emerging and long-term requirements.

Rapid test delivery is also very important. Rapid tests are proving to be another useful tool in our current response to the omicron variant. Thanks to a $3-billion investment through the safe restart agreement, public health units have extensive access to PCR tests and contact tracing resources, but rapid tests provide a further layer of protection by expanding testing into a broader range of environments, making testing even more accessible to Canadians and curtailing more quickly the spread of COVID-19.

I want to share the latest news on our pledge to deliver rapid tests free of charge to provinces and territories. The Government of Canada has negotiated with eight manufacturers to secure rapid antigen tests for the provinces and territories for the coming months. The Government of Canada has been buying and providing COVID-19 rapid tests free of charge to provinces and territories since October 2020 in line with its authorization of the first COVID-19 rapid test.

While the demand for COVID-19 rapid tests has increased significantly, the government has kept pace, being a reliable partner to provinces and territories, and that will continue. Since the start of the pandemic, we have procured 490 million tests, in fact.

In conclusion, testing is a critical part of Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and how we adjust to everyday life. It allows us to identify outbreaks more quickly, isolate those who are sick, initiate contact tracing and support public health decisions at all levels of government. Equitable access to tests by all Canadians would help to limit the ongoing transmission of the omicron variant. It would help us to rebuild our economy and our lives. It would enable Canadians to know more quickly whether they are infected and to make choices that protect them and our communities.

As potential future waves of this pandemic come and go, we need to be able to weather the storm by using all the resources at our disposal. I trust that all hon. members of this House will agree that equitable access to testing would further protect all Canadians and help us through this pandemic. As a country we need the additional funding of $2.5 billion that Bill C-10 would provide to procure additional tests, and with members' support, we could make sure that every Canadian is in fact supported. We could unite on this point and unite in our common goal of being able to protect our health and to be able to rebuild our nation.

I will conclude by thanking health workers in my home community of London. I do not think that can be said enough. There will be disagreements in this House, and there are disagreements in this House, but one thing I hope we can unite on is recognizing the incredible contributions that they have made. Doctors, nurses and health workers of all kinds since the beginning of this pandemic have stood by members of our communities. London is a health care community and our identity in so many ways is based on that. We have world-class hospitals in our city.

Those constituents who continue to serve in hospitals, who continue to stand by my constituents, I cannot thank them enough. They know that this bill is very important, because while rapid tests are not a panacea as some think, they are a very important tool in combatting the virus. We know that from the health experts who have advised the government on the necessity of precisely this bill. That is why it is so important that we pass this. I hope we can pass it unanimously.