44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2022 11:00AM
- Feb/14/22 11:34:19 a.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House that today was the first vote called by our table officer Suzie Cadieux. I am sure members will join me in congratulating her.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to rise once again in the House of Commons to continue the debate we began on Friday with respect to a motion not to have a debate. It is shocking.
I had the opportunity to speak on Friday, and I think it is important, given the continued events in the world, that I give a bit of a review on the topics that we covered previously. We are being asked to spend $2.5 billion, and it is important to give a context so that citizens can better understand the exact nature of that amount of money. As I mentioned previously, it is 1.75% of the projected deficit for this year. We speak colloquially about a ton of money, and this indeed is a veritable ton of money. If we talk about $2.5 billion with respect to the mass of loonies that would be, the math would lead us to understand it would be over 17,000 tonnes, in fact. As I said, it is a veritable ton of money.
The point was made very clearly that it is important in a democratic society that we continue to have free and open debate that is based not only on the rules with respect to how democracy works. We also need to continue to remember those who fought and died for our freedom. We must be mindful that we are not disrespectful to the sacrifices those individuals and their families have made over many years for our great nation.
I also touched on the topic of leadership. Given the current events and the dissension we have see in our country over at least the last weeks, months and years, and especially over the course of the last couple of weeks and in what is going on today, it is important to reflect upon the concept of leadership and exactly what being a good leader is and how that unfortunately has allowed us to live in a country that is so divided. Therefore, it is more important than ever to prevent more dissension as we present differing points of view during this democratic process. Furthermore, not only did we give some rules of leadership to ponder, but there was also a litany of qualities or characteristics that would be important for good leadership. Once again, for the sake of brevity, I will not reiterate the entire list, although if we were to read it back, it is quite excellent. Suffice it to say, I do want to be clear: Good hair did not make that list.
Finally, to begin to tie things together, we talked about the divisive language and, of course, that this has led to party dissension among my colleagues across the aisle. They made headlines across Canada for their comments and for fanning the flames of division inside their own party and among Canadians in general. Many members of the House know, of course, the ancient saying that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Members of the House have often heard from the Liberal Party that there were difficulties in our party. This has been brought up multiple times and was brought up as recently as Friday.
An hon. member: Tell us more about that.
Mr. Stephen Ellis: Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleagues on the opposite side want to mock us Conservatives, so to use their language, we shall take no lessons from the Liberal Party.
It has become very clear that the Liberals are asking us not to debate a motion and are asking for $2.5 billion without any type of discussion. It is astonishing given that they are debating such things inside their own party. If the Liberals cannot even get their own caucus to agree on their policies, procedures, actions and deliverables, why would they assume and surmise that those of us sitting opposite them, representing our own ridings in a democratic nation, would be so frivolous as to give them a free pass to simply spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars without any input or discussion from the rest of us elected to the House? As we know, the members who have spoken out against their leader believe that Canadians should not be mocked, stigmatized, divided, set apart and marginalized for their beliefs. Bravo, I say, to those members across the aisle. I thank them for listening.
Those members are willing to stand up on behalf of their constituents and support those values and the belief that all Canadians are Canadians, and as such, are awarded with the same rights and freedoms as each other. Ongoing legal arguments will likely proceed, and it will remain to be seen as to whether the mandates created by the government are infringing upon section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, what is blatantly obvious and crystal clear at this time is that the mis-characterization, mistreatment and mislabelling of Canadians who have chosen, for whatever reason, to not be subject to vaccination, is inappropriate, divisive and uncalled for by the leader of this country.
Also, I think it is important to say, for the sake of clarity, and to once again have it read into the record, that Canada's Conservatives believe vaccinations are an important part of the fight against COVID‑19. We encourage Canadians who are able to be vaccinated. Of course, many of these Canadian citizens have lost their ability to do wage-earning work. As mentioned previously, they have that loss of wage-earning work, coupled with their inability to travel or do many leisure activities, and to then they are called names on top of that. It is like a schoolyard bully winning a fight, taking our lunch money, and then taking our lunch box too. Where does that leave us?
We have had the opportunity to help Canadians better understand the vast amount of money we are talking about here today through the concepts of budgeting stacks of money and by using everyday common sense. We have also had the opportunity today to hear about the debt, the deficit, its ballooning amounts and the difficulties that may play for Canadians in the future. We have also looked at the debt per Canadian and how it has increased over the last 50 years from approximately $688 per Canadian to well over $30,000 per Canadian.
We have examined democracy. I did not go all the way back to the origins of democracy, but we did look at the tremendous sacrifices many Canadians have made in order for the democratic process to be first and foremost in our government proceedings and how we need to honour those who gave their very lives to protect that democracy from tyranny.
Further to this, we examined leadership and some thoughts about what that means. We examined what it means to a country when its citizens feel betrayed and the leadership of a country is off-course, offside or off-putting with respect to its citizens, and how that may affect the ability to pass a bill without any debate.
We know there are nations around the world struggling with their democracies or struggling to become democracies. We know there are countries, such as Ukraine, that stand on the brink of war and invasion, which could perhaps topple a potential fledging democratic nation into the hold of a nation which is, in theory, a federal democratic state, but it would appear the power is concentrated in the hands of a very few people. Over the years, Canada has stood as a beacon of light in the often dark nights of democracy. Immigrants have flocked to our shores looking for a home, to improve their future, to be safe from all forms of political persuasion or coercion, and to be able to celebrate the personal freedoms and rights we have historically enjoyed here in Canada.
Finally, given the unprecedented protest outside these very doors, I would be remiss in my duties as an elected official if I did not take the opportunity to debate the motions that come before this House, unless of course, we are in extreme circumstances, as we were previously with the wonderful vote we had here in the House, on which we all agreed.
As one contemplates the fragility of democracy over the relatively short time Canada has enjoyed status as a democratic nation, we understand the weight of our responsibility as legislators. In the grand scheme of history, 154 and a half years of democracy is a mere drop in the bucket. Democracy needs to be continuously refined in the flames of good process and citizen participation. Therefore, perhaps if we do not, for the sake of debating, spend $2.5 billion, then we do owe it to the continual improvement of the democratic situation to question the hows, the whys, the whens and the whats of what we are presented with in the House of Commons.
Given that we are in an unprecedented pandemic, it is important to realize that several concessions could be made without stopping debate on the bill. There are several opportunities at our disposal, including limiting the amount of debate and expediting the bill to committee, while at the same time, giving the bill its due consideration. Canada's Conservatives have been calling for the approval of rapid tests in Canada for over 14 months. I find it very unusual that it has now become an absolute urgency to spend another $2.5 billion without any consideration at all the changes in science we have seen in this dynamic situation. Perhaps there is an opportunity for a committee to have a very close at this and understand what the experts are saying, and as I have been loathe to continue saying, they are the doctors, not the spin doctors.
In this very House, tests were only being procured in early January 2020. Then, during the unprecedented omicron wave, which was before, during and after the extremely busy holiday Christmas season, the government did not provide any tests for its citizens. There were none.
The government has continued with its motto of doing too little, too late and not at the right time. We went from giving Canadians advice to get a test and have their contacts traced to, during the most precious time over Christmas, advising not to get a test at all because of the government's terrible failure to even procure the tests. Once again, we are in the situation, unfortunately, where the government is asking for 1.75% of its total deficit to buy tests when, as we begin to see the lifting of restrictions on a provincial level, one might question the utility of the tests at all. That is why this motion needs to go to the health committee, so the experts can weigh in.
Given the potential to question the utility of it, it would be even more important. Is it time to spend $2.5 billion on tests that Canadians may or may not use, tests that may sit on shelves until they expire? That would, sadly, see that $2.5 billion wasted. The important thing to understand is that we need to have a look at the science, and the health committee would gladly welcome this, in spite of our Liberal colleagues simply wishing to ram this through using their pseudo-science instead of actual science.
I think it important to understand the enormity of the money being spent, the failed leadership of the government, the affront to democracy and the unprecedented protests outside, and to better understand the dynamic science, as we know and understand more if this is useful. I do know that the spin doctors will try to spin this and say that we do not want tests, but we would like to actually study it to understand if we should be spending $2.5 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money on something that may be useless at this time.
Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended:
(a) in paragraph (a), by replacing the words “immediately after the adoption of this order” with the words “at the next sitting of the House”;
(b) by deleting paragraph (b);
(c) in paragraph (c), by replacing the words “the debate” with the words “Government Orders on the day the bill is considered”;
(d) in paragraph (d), by deleting all the words after the words “if the bill is” and substituting the following: “read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, consideration in committees shall take place the following day, provided that the Minister of Health be ordered to appear as a witness before the committee during its consideration of the bill, and that if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 p.m. that day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, that the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee be instructed to report the bill to the House, by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, no later than three hours before the next sitting of the House”;
(e) in paragraph (e), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “no notice of motions in amendment shall be allowed at report stage”;
(f) in paragraph (f), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “the report stage and third reading stage of the bill may be considered during the same sitting and be ordered for consideration at the next sitting following the presentation of the report”; and
(g) in paragraph (g), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “when the order is read for the consideration of the bill at report stage, the motion to concur in the bill at report stage be deemed carried on division and the House then proceed immediately to consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, provided that, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders that day or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed on division”.
I thank the House for its time and consideration in using the process of democracy.
2420 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The amendment is in order.
We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities.
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. colleagues are worried that I am not going to be nice enough for them.
When the hon. member spoke, he said that our government was an affront to democracy. He supports the protesters outside.
However, the Canadian public voted in a democratic election, electing all of us to the House, including the Prime Minister, to enact bills, debate and go to committees. At exactly what point was there an affront to democracy for the Canadian voters who put us here to do the work on their behalf? Maybe speak up and use an example of what part of democracy was undermined, as you sit in your seat.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 12:42:09 p.m.
- Watch
First of all, I would like to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that she is to address all questions and comments to the Chair.
Second of all, hon. members know that it is neither polite nor respectful to be yelling or talking while the hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
I also want to remind members not to tell another member to sit down when they have the floor, as I have recognized them.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that it is important that we maintain our decorum in the House. It is also important that we understand what the democratic process is. For my colleagues across the floor to attempt to ram a bill through the House without debate when we all know the Senate is not even here until next week really does not make any sense.
The question that needs to be answered in my mind is what the harm is of giving due diligence to a bill to understand what the science is behind it and bringing it to committee, as we normally would do. Considering that we on this side of the House have been asking for rapid tests for 18 months, what is now the urgency, when during the height of the omicron variant surge we did not even have tests, and now it appears many restrictions are being lifted? Those are the germane points that are important for people to understand.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I served on the Standing Committee on Health for two years and remember when the Conservatives were championing the delivery of rapid tests to Canadians, and properly so. We have a bill before us to authorize an expenditure of $2.5 billion, which I am told would purchase about 400 million rapid tests, and Conservatives seem to be opposed to it. It is almost as if they cannot take yes for answer.
I generally agree with the Conservatives regarding closure. We usually do not want to see debate truncated, but we are in an emergency right now, and there is a terrible shortage in this country of access to rapid tests. That is why there is urgency. It is a two-section bill. The NDP worked productively and received assurance from the government that it would report to the House every six months on how many doses were purchased, how much was spent and where those doses were delivered. That is the NDP working productively.
My hon. colleague said that he wants to study whether or not we need these tests. Can he name three scientists in the country who are advocating that we do not need rapid tests in this country in the months ahead?
208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the important thing to consider about this measure for rapid tests is if it is once again too little, too late, and not at the right time. Everybody in the House wants to understand what the science is. We know it has been a very dynamic situation throughout COVID and we have seen many, many changes, from we should get a test to we should not get a test to maybe we should or maybe we should not, that we should not get one because there are none, that the test we should get is a PCR test and then that it should be a rapid test.
We also know very clearly from the science that during the omicron wave there was a likelihood that someone was contagious much before the time the person would even show a positive test result. We also know from a scientific perspective that the specificity and sensitivity of rapid tests have been brought into question by some. That interesting part is again what we need to study before the health committee with my hon. colleague, who I am glad to hear would be happy to have us study this in committee.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a lot to be said on making sure there is a proper accounting at committee of value for money to make sure these scarce dollars are being put to the best use. In British Columbia, we do not even have access to rapid testing, so there will be questions about whether there is value for money in this case.
I want to ask the member about competency, because the government could have made this into a supply bill. It easily could have added it to the estimates or the supplementary estimates, yet it has done this expenditure through an actual bill.
Why does the member think the government has done that? Is it because it cannot budget? Was it because the Prime Minister needed to pull a COVID rabbit out of his hat so he could tell the provinces to look at what the government is doing for them? I would like to find out what the member has to say about the unique nature of this particular proposal and why it was not budgeted for through the usual processes.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues here. As my hon. colleague said the other day, there is unfortunately no vaccine for Liberal budgeting incompetence; we wish there were.
As I said, this is a veritable ton of money. If we stacked dollar bills, we would have 30 metres of dollar bills for this $2.5 billion. It is important to remember that it is not an insignificant amount of money. The other part is that my Liberal colleagues do realize the tide is turning in their hard-handed measures, and as they see revolt and dissent inside their own caucus, they realize that is also the mood of Canadians.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to know one thing.
My colleague said that the Conservatives are not opposed to vaccination. As we know, after the SARS crisis in 2003, the Naylor report criticized Canada for not having the capacity to manufacture vaccines. Of all the G7 countries, Canada is the only one that does not manufacture vaccines domestically. That is in part the result of the Trudeau government's inaction.
We lost four or five months of fighting COVID with a vaccine because of the Trudeau government's inaction. On August 10, 2021, the government announced that Moderna would set up a plant in Canada, likely in Montreal, which is what we were hoping for. However, the Trudeau government's investments will not do much—
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 12:49:15 p.m.
- Watch
Order. The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister's name.
I know that he knows the rules of the House. I would therefore remind him not to do that.
I would like him to finish his remarks by asking his question.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the following.
Would it not have been a big help if the Liberal government had taken action and we were able to manufacture vaccines in Quebec or Canada?
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, certainly we have spoken about domestic capacity in this House previously, as well as the shocking and astonishing lack of domestic capacity, given that we could have an ability here to mobilize to not only create and manufacture tests in Canada but also to produce vaccines and antivirals.
Members on this side of the House have spoken about that multiple times, as well as the shame in not respecting the innovation and intelligence of the Canadian community, which would be more than happy. I also think that before the wedge was driven by the Liberal government, our own vaccines could have been an excellent way to encourage more Canadians to be immunized, in the sense that they would have had a homegrown vaccine. I think that would have been an excellent thing. Unfortunately, we are two years into this pandemic and we still have no domestic production of vaccines, and none in sight, due to the incompetence of the government.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very perplexed by the position of the Conservative Party. They opposed mandatory vaccination in the chamber 90 days ago, instead proposing rapid testing of MPs as a secure method of our attending here. As I listen to my hon. colleague, he seems to be calling into question the very efficacy and validity of testing. He seems to suggest that testing should be a decision made by the health committee.
What is the position of the Conservative Party? Do its members believe that access to testing is an important way to deal with the current pandemic, or do they question the science of testing?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is important that people begin to understand that science does change and that it is dynamic. I think it is important to have an opportunity to hear what the science is, and I believe the health committee is an excellent way to do that. If the science is correct and rapid testing is useful and appropriate, why would the Conservatives not support that? However, and I cannot understand why my hon. colleagues want to fight about this, if the science is not correct, then why would we not admit that? What is there to hide behind? This is $2.5 billion.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 12:52:26 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
It is not time for debate anymore, and the hon. parliamentary secretary knows full well that if she has questions and comments, she should wait for the appropriate time to ask those or make those.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Science is not an opinion.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19. This bill was introduced by the member for Québec and is currently at second reading.
What is the purpose of this bill?
First, this bill would authorize the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion for any expenses incurred in relation to coronavirus disease tests.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
