44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2022 11:00AM
- Feb/14/22 5:11:44 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments. Let us try to get another quick one in here from the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when I hear Conservatives talking about the blockades, I sometimes get the sense that they are kind of like the kid who was playing with matches in a hay barn and was then surprised that the barn burned down.
That said, the motion we have before us is trying to forward a bill very quickly that Conservatives have been calling for for over a year now, and I am wondering why the Conservatives are holding back on something that would allow provinces to get the resources they need so that we can quickly track where COVID is happening and give many families peace of mind.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing to see the NDP basically giving up all its principles as part of whatever deal it has with the government. The NDP used to understand very well the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and of a minister testifying about bills, and there should be opportunities to propose amendments at committee.
This is such a basic thing about how parliamentary democracy should function. All parties, except the Liberals, used to get it. Now the NDP has fallen head over heels for this nonsense that somehow, because we agree with the principle of a bill, we need to rush it through without any kind of study. This is ridiculous. We need to do our jobs as parliamentarians to study the legislation, see if it does the things it says it does, see if it works and subject it to a basic level of scrutiny. That is what we are paid to do.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to rise in this place to talk to the issues that are so affecting Canadians.
To be honest, I join this debate today with a conflicted heart, having just listened to the Prime Minister's press conference. Before members opposite jump up to call points of order to try to discourage a debate in this place, it is very relevant to the issue at hand.
I rise conflicted because we have a government that has shown itself time and time again to be, quite frankly, and I am going to compliment the government, good at politics. They are thanking me, but they have not heard the second part.
Liberals are good at politics, but they have shown over the last six years that they are not so good at governing. They are quick to take credit, but they never take responsibility. They are quick to divide when it benefits them and their interests, yet they refuse to show an ounce of humility or contrition, even though that is what true leadership is.
I stand conflicted in this place because I just listened to the press conference, where the Prime Minister of this country continued down the path of division and fear, using further inflammatory language. I spoke in this place, about two weeks ago, about how that was inflaming the frustrations and leading to the demonstrations in the streets. It was incredibly disappointing that the Prime Minister would continue down this path instead of acknowledging his failures.
Let us be clear that there are failures, one after the other after the other. There are failures regarding the pandemic. There are failures regarding the so-called fringe minority with despicable views. There are failures on every front, which has led to a country that has maybe never been more divided.
I have spoken a lot about that in this place. The members opposite think that is somehow playing politics, and that it is somehow okay to divide, conquer and segment different elements of Canadian society because it fits their political narrative, so they can win.
I am about halfway through the former attorney general and justice minister's book. This is probably going to trigger a whole bunch of Liberals. I am about halfway through Jody Wilson-Raybould's book and, acknowledging that she and I would disagree on a lot of things regarding policy and practice, what is interesting is that everything that we say is wrong with the Liberal Prime Minister and the way he governs this country is affirmed in the pages of that book.
It is why I say that the Prime Minister and the government are good at politics, but they fail when it comes to governing. The consequences of that are seen each and every day across this country. That is a shame for Canada. I hope and pray each and every day that those divides, and the scars being left on this nation, are not so deep and damaging that it is irreparable.
Those are strong words, but it is what I hear each and every day from my constituents, the people who sent me here and who I have the honour of representing. They feel left behind by these Liberals. I am going to speculate for a moment that the positions, talking points and carefully crafted messaging that come out of the government benches do not reflect the reality of what many of the constituents of those members across the way face.
I am not suggesting there is universal agreement on any of these issues. That would be a mistake the Prime Minister would make. No, I am suggesting there are differences of opinion, but in a democracy that is okay. In a democracy, that is what makes the strength of our discourse. Shortly after being elected, I had to spend much of my time fighting to ensure this place, the only place in this country where there is truly representation from every corner of the country, was able to sit.
I find the path that our nation is on to be incredibly troubling, when the Emergencies Act has been implemented, after 18 days, I think it was. The language the Prime Minister continues to use is incredibly troubling. There is no humility, no leadership, failure after failure, rhetoric inflamed daily in question period, accusations tossed out about members of the official opposition and even to those within their own party when there is disagreement there. I know that those members opposite are hearing a narrative that is very different than the carefully crafted one being amplified by a few political staffers in the PMO, who are bent on power at all costs. It is shameful, and our country is more divided for it.
We see a debate today on an initiative that should be able to unite Canadians, yet what I do find very interesting is, again, the rhetoric. They are trying to somehow blame Conservatives for doing our job. The Liberals need to be careful because Canadians are watching. We want to debate legislation. What I saw, time and time again, throughout the pandemic, was the Liberals would bring forward legislation and say that unless we gave it a rubber stamp, then somehow we were not Canadian enough and somehow we were not serving our constituents, whatever the rhetoric of the day was.
This place ensures the ability for scrutiny of legislation, for things like the rapid testing bill, with its two parts covering both the procurement and the transfer of rapid tests to our provinces. The Liberals have played politics with this, so they have invoked closure so the debate on this ends today. However, we have not heard the Prime Minister apologize for calling an election in the midst of a crisis that has divided Canadians even more. The fact that he lied about mandating—
Oh, my apologies.
988 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 5:20:28 p.m.
- Watch
Could the member retract that word? Thank you.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will adjust my language to simply point out the inconsistency of the Prime Minister's message prior to the election campaign. As my colleague from the Liberal Party in Quebec very effectively highlighted in the press gallery this past week, there was a real change in the Prime Minister's rhetoric in the days leading up to the election, which he had promised he would not call. I certainly know what that is, and I know Canadians watching do as well.
We want to see rapid tests in the hands of Canadians. We want to see the tools used. I never thought, prior to getting involved in politics, that I would invite local weekly newspapers to come to cover me getting my COVID-19 vaccination because I believed that was in the best interest of the country. However, to hear that the Liberals would somehow change their narrative to demonize the fact that we acknowledge there is not universal agreement on something, it speaks to how utterly ignorant and discriminatory, quite frankly, their rhetoric has become.
We have mandates being changed around the country, and the usage of things like rapid tests, which we are talking about here today, is a tool to help us move forward to learn to live with COVID, yet we have the Liberals who, instead of backing up and carefully considering a path forward, double down on failures and division. Now there is the invocation of the Emergencies Act. My constituents remind me often, because I am not old enough to remember the elder Trudeau when he was prime minister, and I know I am not allowed to say the name of the current, but I was referring to the previous, there are scars that this country has not healed from, from the elder Trudeau. I find it incredibly troubling that the Prime Minister is taking Canada down a path where I fear what the consequences will be.
Whether the Liberals are playing politics with the fact that we Conservatives in the official opposition want to do our job or playing politics with the fact that even though we may disagree on aspects of the pandemic response, we cannot find much agreement, instead of charting a path forward that would put the interest of Canadians first, the Liberals, again in this bill and everything they do, are dividing Canadians for their narrow political game, and that has to stop. For the sake of our country, that has to stop.
417 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as I flew into Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of sitting on the plane next to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot's wife. We had a wonderful conversation. This being Valentine's Day, I hope he has been in touch with her, as I have been with mine. It was nice getting to know his wife in that way.
The member touched on the election, and I want to let him perhaps expand on that. A lot of people in Canada watching at home think the election took up six weeks of time, but here we are in early February, and we are only just starting a lot of what Parliament has to get going. Six months were wasted for all the issues that are facing us, not just COVID, but also housing and the opioid crisis. I wonder if the member could take some time there.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether Danielle is watching. I know she does not watch CPAC all day. I will thank my hon. colleague from B.C., as I do want to wish Danielle a happy Valentine's Day. I love her, and I am so appreciate of the support that she gives. I thank the member for that reminder, and this will be on the record for all time. I hope the member and his wife have been able to have an enjoyable time. My wife did comment about how much she enjoyed that flight from Toronto to Ottawa a number of weeks ago, and about how conversations, and this place, can bring people together, even when we have, in some cases, diametrically opposed ideological views.
That member highlights exactly the facts when it comes to the Liberals' claiming that there is urgency for this, and I do not disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the fact that, between prorogation and an unnecessary election, we are months behind where we should have been serving Canadians. Instead, the Liberals prioritize politics over the best interests of our country.
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it certainly would never be the case that we have seen the Conservatives put politics ahead of anything in this country. I appreciate that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot understands that, in this place, people in glass houses should not throw stones. However, I want to agree with him that the Prime Minister should never have politicized vaccines as he did on August 15. I remember sitting there watching the launching of an unnecessary election and thinking, oh dear, this will go badly. We must not create wedge issues around public health advice.
Would the member reflect now on what we do as parliamentarians to hold this country together, as even within families, people are breaking apart? We need to hold together.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I have heard from families that are being torn apart by the divisiveness associated with many of these issues. The Quebec Liberal MP who spoke to the press last week articulated very well the division that has taken place as a result of some of the decisions that were brought forward.
I do not often talk about this, but over the election there were a number of instances when the police had to be called, on both extremes of the ideological spectrum in my constituency. If we listen to the Prime Minister and members opposite, they would say what the Prime Minister said in his press conference, which is that somehow there are only right-wing extremists, which I think were the words he used.
The consequence of division for political gain is division in our country, and we are seeing that each and every day. I would never be one to dismiss partisanship, and even its place within our parliamentary institutions, but it is absolutely essential that the priority always be serving Canadians, not our own personal self-interest.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to provide some comments on the motion before us, which puts a set of steps into motion that have to do with how to deal with this particular bill.
As I was preparing to do this and I was listening to the debate in the House for the last several hours, I could not help but wonder where it is that the Conservative concern comes from about passing this legislation so quickly. Almost every speaker who has got up to speak to this has spoken about a whole host of issues other than this particular motion, time after time. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did not speak to the bill at all. He did not even address it, but then in his comments afterwards he said—
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would hate to follow in the member opposite's footsteps, but I certainly wonder what the relevance to the debate at hand is for what he is bringing forward. Specifically, if he is aware that the Senate is not even sitting this week in terms of the delay—
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 5:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
We are getting into the throes of debate once again.
I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue and stick to what he can on the bill.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be addressing the comments that have been made during this debate, but unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who justified his comments by the fact that—
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is supposed to be speaking to this particular motion. He has called out different members for talking about something other than what he thinks they should be talking about. In this case, all he can talk about is what we Conservatives are saying.
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 5:30:33 p.m.
- Watch
We are starting to get into debate. I know we enjoy cutting people off here sometimes, but I am just hoping that we can get back to the debate at hand.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker who rose on a point of order clearly did not hear your ruling when you said that this was getting into debate.
I am going to address the comments I have heard during this debate but, unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who somehow justified his 10-minute speech that had nothing to do with this based on what he had heard other people say, I am not going to attempt to suggest that two wrongs make a right. What I have heard is a number of Conservatives talk about issues that are everything to do with what is going on right now, but not about this particular bill.
We heard the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan say, “We need to do our jobs” and that we need to be able to publicly scrutinize this bill, yet he did not even do that in his own comments. He did not try to scrutinize the bill. He did not bring up the bill once. I even rose on a point of order to ask him to talk about the bill and he would not do that, so I find that very perplexing.
The reason this is important to this debate is that the debate we are having right now is for a programming motion that relates to what happens to this bill that is before us regarding the rapid tests we are looking to acquire. It is extremely important. To me, at least, it validates the fact that this is important and there is very little argument coming from the other side as to why it is not important to move forward with this right now. The important part about this is that I have not heard anything about why we cannot move forward with this.
I know there are some Conservative colleagues out there who very much support rapid tests and were calling on the government to get them weeks ago. Now, suddenly, there seems to be this opposition and an attempt to slow down the actual process.
On January 5, the member for Durham, who colleagues may remember as the former leader of the opposition, said, “Before Christmas, it was like the 'Hunger Games' trying to get a rapid test in Canada”. That was just at the beginning of January when he said that. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable tweeted on January 12, “See! They have failed. Again. Lockdowns and restrictions are being normalized as a public health tools because of [the Prime Minister's] failure to secure rapid tests—
442 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am enjoying this trip down memory lane. In fact, the member is correct that we did call for rapid tests two years ago, but I do not see the relevance here.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 5:33:45 p.m.
- Watch
This is the third point of order on this and I just want to remind members that there is some flexibility during the discussions before the House. On this particular bill, there is that flexibility. I will remind the member to make sure his speech speaks to the bill that is before the House, but we have to be mindful there is quite a bit of flexibility on the issues that surround this bill.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if you review Hansard, I am sure you will find that I am one of the few people who is talking about rapid tests during today's debate. I do appreciate the points of order though, because it gives me an opportunity to collect my thoughts.
On January 5, the member for Thornhill, the Conservative Party transport critic, sent a letter to the Minister of Transport asking that he consider rapid tests as an alternative to the new requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated. Here we have time after time Conservatives calling on the government to get more rapid tests and to do it as quickly as possible, yet today they seem to be in a position where they want to push back against that, delay it and slow it down as much as they can. The member for Calgary Nose Hill is quoted as saying, “We need immediate action to deploy widespread rapid testing for all Canadians”.
Conservative after Conservative, at some point in the last month or two, have been calling on this government to do this and to do it as expeditiously as possible. However, now we get to the point where we have a piece of legislation before us to authorize the government to make those purchases and in turn supply the rapid tests to provinces and territories, yet there is opposition from the Conservatives about doing this. I cannot help but wonder why. We have heard so many times about not politicizing things and not politicizing the debate on this. The Conservatives have said that repeatedly today, but they seem to be doing exactly that, which I find very confusing.
I want to address a point that has been brought up by a couple of Conservatives. The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon brought this up. He asked why there are two bills and why this was not put into the budget implementation act. I find it ironic, I must admit, that the Conservatives are now asking why we did not create an omnibus bill when they usually complain that we are doing that and we should not be doing that. There is actually a really simple answer for that. The answer is that the first allocation of funding in the budget implementation act was a result of the fall economic statement. In the fall economic statement, it was determined x number of dollars was required for rapid tests.
When the statement was delivered and when the bill was introduced and tabled, we had not yet become aware of the omicron variant and what that was going to expose the world to in terms of a new higher demand for rapid tests. Once that comes along and we discover we need more tests and the demand will increase, the default is that we need a new piece of legislation to get more rapid tests into the hands of the Canadian government so they can be deployed to the provinces and territories.
There is a very simple explanation for why this has been done in two different bills. The Conservatives want to paint it as some kind of sinister attempt to fool somebody or to try to trick people by putting this into two bills for some reason. This bill is very straightforward and it is very simple. There are two clauses. It does not even consist of more than three sentences in total. There is one sentence in the introduction, one sentence in the first clause and one sentence in the second clause. The first clause authorizes the Minister of Health to make the payments necessary to secure rapid tests. The second clause allows the minister to deploy those rapid tests to provinces and territories throughout Canada so that provinces can work to make sure that the supplies are available in terms of rapid testing.
I cannot help but wonder why there is this cry from across the way about division and political opportunity when we are literally talking about the simplest bill I have ever seen before the House in the six years I have been here. It is very straightforward. It could easily pass quickly and could be moved along so we can get those resources into the hands of provinces and territories.
However, we are still hearing the rhetoric from across the way that we have not delivered. This government has delivered millions of rapid tests and put them in the hands of the provinces and the authorities that distribute them. Wherever we can, we have made sure that there were opportunities for those who needed rapid tests to have them, paid for by federal dollars, essentially being paid for by all Canadians, which is what is so critically important when it comes to anything related to our health care.
This is a bill that specifically asks for that and we are being accused of trying to somehow sow division and a create political opportunity when this is the simplest bill and the easiest piece of legislation to understand. It really comes down, in my opinion, to whether or not Conservatives want them, yes or no. I have heard mixed messages from across the way all day long. The leader in the House for the Conservatives said, “Throughout the pandemic, the Conservative Party has consistently and persistently called for greater access to rapid tests for all Canadians.” He even went as far as to say that he supports rapid tests and this bill.
However, then I heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester question whether or not rapid tests are even effective and scientifically proven. He said, “I find it very unusual that it has now become an absolute urgency...without any consideration at all”. Let us not forget that this is from the same party that days and weeks ago called on the government to have these rapid tests yesterday. He then went on to say that this is without any consideration for “the changes in science we have seen in this dynamic situation.” He even said that there is a need “to have a look at the science”. The member for Cumberland—Colchester actually said that. One of the Conservative Party's senior representatives on the health committee said that. He is questioning the science of rapid tests.
This leaves me to wonder where the Conservatives are on this. Do they believe in rapid tests and think they effectively work or do they question the science, demanding that we look at the science of it, as though somehow the health committee of Parliament is going to better understand the science than the people who have authorized the use of these tests in Canada? I find it absolutely remarkable.
The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon said in his speech today, “in my province”, which is British Columbia, “the public health officer is telling us that, for the majority of the population, they are not needed anymore”. We have the Conservative House leader saying we need them, want them and support them, but Conservatives just do not like the way the government is doing it. We have the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan saying the exact same thing, but he never brought up in his speech the need for them or questioned this bill whatsoever. We have the member for Cumberland—Colchester questioning the science and validity of rapid tests, and then we have the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon saying they are not even needed anymore.
I am sorry if I am a little confused as to where the Conservative Party is coming from on this and if my default reaction, as usual, unfortunately, is to assume that its members are trying to play games, but their actions and words in the House only lead one to conclude this. I have been watching. I have been here for the entire debate and there is no absolutely no consistency. It is as though Conservatives are trying filibuster this and make it last as long as it can. That is not going to benefit Canadians, it is not going to benefit the people who need these rapid tests and it is not going to be a good partner with the provinces and territories that deliver these supplies across the country. At the end of the day, all it is going to do is slow this government down so that the opposition can say that we did not get them quick enough. I am sorry I end up at this place where I assume this, but it is based on everything that I have heard here today.
I appreciate the time to contribute to this debate today. I think these tests are absolutely critical to making sure we have the supplies in the hands of the provinces and territories, the health agencies they work with, and the various partners that will help distribute them.
As members will recall, a short six to eight weeks ago we did not know we would need this many tests. Suddenly we do, and we do not know what we are going to need six, seven or eight weeks from now. We need to make sure that we have these rapid tests in hand so if there is another variant like omicron, or something similar, we are prepared to make sure we can deploy rapid tests to the various organizations that will help us distribute them throughout the country.
I am very supportive of moving forward with the motion before us right now, which is to program the bill so that it properly gets to a vote later on this evening and so that we can pass it here, allow it to take its course and be passed by the Senate. Then we can get to a point where we can purchase these rapid tests and make sure they get into the hands of Canadians throughout the country.
1679 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
