So V ote

Feb/19/22 6:42:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly, as I just mentioned previously, that is a concern that I would have as a concerned Canadian citizen. If one is a leader and does nothing and ends up with a ham-fisted approach, was that perhaps the whole raison d'être from the very beginning? I think that is very possible. I think that Canadians not only want the Liberals off of our backs but we also want them out of our pocketbooks as well.

80 words

All Topics

Feb/19/22 6:41:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with everything up to the point where she talked about how the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing. That is obviously, patently true. That point is really important. The difficulty here, as I pointed out in my speech, is the question of how we got here. We got here because of this terrible, unbelievably poor leadership and if we did not have that, we would not have had to come here. I guess I am concerned that perhaps this pathway was as planned out by the Prime Minister as the protest was.

96 words

All Topics

Feb/19/22 6:39:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc for understanding the untenable situation we are in and the ridiculous nature of using this act. It is very clear that the Prime Minister is attempting to save his approval ratings, which are dismal at the current time and will continue to fall as Canadians realize that he does not represent the true nature of what it is to be a Canadian.

68 words

All Topics

Feb/19/22 6:38:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is fascinating that even the Liberals recognize that the Prime Minister has not spoken or created any dialogue with the protesters. I have to say I think that is shameful and it is quite honestly ridiculous. How can that member opposite possibly say that because someone else does something wrong, they can continue to do wrong things and that makes it right? Wow, my mom taught me that when I was a kid.

78 words

All Topics

Feb/19/22 6:32:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, lots of words come to mind about that negative interruption. The way the member put the words of his interruption into the record is disturbing. It is interesting how the Liberal colleagues often talk about how dangerous or scary the protest is, yet I do not think any of them even walked into the protest. When I was at the health committee one day, it ended early because my colleagues were scared to go out in the dark. Further failures of leadership are clear. Documents have been made available to us in which the Prime Minister convened a first ministers' meeting. Its proposed agenda was to consult premiers on whether to declare this a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act. The documents reveal that the opinions of the premiers were given in confidence. However, since then their positions have been made clear. The Premier of Quebec did not think it was beneficial. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were opposed. I could find no comments for the Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunavut. If in that consultation the opinions of seven of the 10 premiers were ignored, why bother having it? As has been pointed out repeatedly, there never has been nor will there be any consultation by the Prime Minister or any of his government officials with the protesters. I will repeat that for the House and all Canadians. The Prime Minister has never spoken to any of the protesters who were there previously and now he has decided to employ and access the Emergencies Act. Besides the Prime Minister's dismal approval rating, what is the emergency? What steps could have been taken before the government enacted the Emergencies Act that would have made this right, so that Canadians could believe that some suspension of their rights and freedoms would be appropriate? A public order emergency is described as a “threat” to Canada's security, including acts of espionage and sabotage; “foreign influenced activities” that are detrimental to Canadian interests; terrorist activities; and efforts to covertly or by violence overthrow the constitutional structure of the country. Lawful advocacy, protests, demonstrations and similar activities are not included. I think I made it clear that walking through the protests I did not feel unsafe. This public order emergency has given the federal government significant overreach with respect to potentially accessing the bank accounts of not only those involved in the civil disobedience but of those who may have donated to the cause. As we have heard before, does that mean if one were to donate $5 or $10, that person's assets would be frozen? If relatives of a leader of a party in this House had donated to the cause would their assets be frozen? I wonder. Bloomberg News described it that “banks would be required to report relationships with people involved in blockades and would be given the authority to freeze accounts without a court order, among other measures.” I spoke to Daniel the other day, who is now afraid to donate to any charity and he is now afraid his bank account may be frozen and he will not be able to pay his mortgage. He wonders if these new powers will continue to be used for other causes that raise funds if the government does not agree with their values. He is a proud Canadian with three Canadian flags in his yard. From the current government we have seen travel restricted, cellphone data collected, military propaganda used domestically, bank accounts frozen and now the Emergencies Act invoked. If those are not multiple infringements upon the civil liberties and the Charter of Rights of Freedoms of Canadians, what is? Canada is now at a crossroads with its democracy. We have a Prime Minister who chooses to vilify, stigmatize and traumatize Canadians with different opinions. The government has declared a public order emergency with the disagreement of seven of 10 premiers and indeed the vast majority of our country outside of Ottawa has no evidence of a public order emergency. We have seen law enforcement agencies successfully deal with the frustrations that have boiled over at the Ambassador Bridge and a multitude of other border crossings without the Emergencies Act. We also heard about the massive disruptions these blockades at border crossings have caused and the damage that has done to our economy. However, I cannot fathom that the finance minister tells us how great the economy is at the current time, despite our 5.1% inflation rate and Canadians being priced out of their own lives, all of which was in existence before the last three weeks. There is absolutely no reason the Emergencies Act cannot be rescinded post-haste and the madness stopped. It is sad that an ideological coalition has the potential to allow the act to continue for up to another 30 days. The left wing thinks that its position is perfectly fine, and there is no issue with that. These people, who wanted to protest, were ignored. That is the sad reality of how we ended up here.

858 words

All Topics

Feb/19/22 6:26:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to have the opportunity to address the House of Commons, especially in this seminal moment in Canadian history. I did not want to do it this way, but I did come back to my riding. I thought it important to understand very clearly what the national emergency was, and I will come to that more in the rest of my intervention. There are many difficulties with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and to be debating something that has already happened is somewhat counterproductive. However, that will be an important part of the mandatory review of the entire process as we go forward. The two main issues, as I see them, really boil down to how we got here and what the justification is for the Emergencies Act. There are those here who wish to muddy the waters as to the legal justification for using the Emergencies Act, and I do believe that there are people out there who have that very important skill set. That will form part of the review as well. The question we need to start with is how we got here, and this, in my mind, has been the most dismal display of leadership I have ever seen. As many in the House have been, I have been a part of sporting teams, committees and leadership positions in the medical community, and I have served in the Royal Canadian Air Force. One thing that is very crystal clear is that when we encounter those who do not fully agree with our position or support what we think is important, then that moment in time represents a significant opportunity for dialogue. Also, as a physician, I think the opportunity to discuss options and negotiate with patients presented itself to me on a daily basis, and I will be so crass as to say that this is communications 101. Since the beginning of this pandemic, I have been shocked and appalled with respect to the language used by the Prime Minister when commenting upon those who have been vaccine-hesitant. I have been concerned about vaccine hesitancy since the beginning of the pandemic, and certainly I took the opportunity to review the scientific literature on the topic of vaccine hesitancy. There are innumerable papers, and I have had the opportunity to review them, and there was absolutely no mention of division, stigmatization or name-calling. The language used in these scientific papers would be more along the lines of building relationships, building trust and understanding the other person's position. Chris Voss, who is a famous FBI negotiator, during one particularly difficult case, spoke through an apartment door for six hours with no response. In the end, the fugitives and the hostages emerged suddenly. The fugitives commented, “you calmed us down.... We finally believed you wouldn't go away, so we just came out.” I think it is important people know I have been in Ottawa for the last three weeks, since the protests began, and every day I walked to work. I realize, as has been brought forward by others, I am a white man. I understand that. I have never been accosted, accused or threatened. I wear a mask, but sadly, Canadians who do not agree with the Prime Minister have been vilified, stigmatized and called names. Let us keep that in mind. Even on Wednesday evening just past, I left my office at the corner of Bank and Wellington, and I walked all the way up to the Byward Market during the protest. Indeed, I did not feel unsafe. Nobody even spoke to me. Was this a public order emergency? Certainly, I do believe there are other avenues to deal with this situation, and certainly, as I have mentioned previously, I returned here to Nova Scotia and there is absolutely no public order emergency here. Life is going on as normal, and I think parliamentarians portraying what is going on in Ottawa as a public order emergency are a little misguided. This isolated issue here in Ottawa does not a national emergency make. I have heard many Liberal colleagues talking about how dangerous or scary—

700 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 7:43:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned a lot of numbers and a lot of supports about all these tests that have been done and all these interesting organizations. It is interesting. Just because something is numerous and noisy does not make it right, and I think that is an important thing we should all consider. That being said, I need to make something clear. In asymptomatic people who use rapid antigen tests, the sensitivity is about 44% in some studies, which would mean massive numbers of people actually have COVID who are told they do not. The math is simple: 44% of people would say they have COVID, but there would be a whole bunch of people who we would have missed. Again, if these things are as important as the science these Liberals keep talking about, would it not make sense to simply send this bill to the health committee to be studied before we pass it?

158 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 6:47:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle seem to think tests are of great import. They talk a lot about the science. My question is this: What is the danger with a rapid test that has a very, very poor sensitivity rate?

42 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 6:35:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the floor are such great proponents of these rapid tests, and it is interesting because they are important for the country. If the Liberals really feel comfortable with the science, I wonder if the member opposite could clearly communicate the sensitivity and specificity in asymptomatic individuals who get a rapid test. What is that and what does it mean to people?

66 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 6:25:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her debate this evening. This is an important topic. I wonder if she has some comments, being new in the House, about the process of democracy and the importance of what we are doing here in the House. That will perhaps educate our colleagues about the importance of this and how much it comes to bear on Canadian citizens, especially at a time when our Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act.

80 words

All Topics

Feb/14/22 12:51:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

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

Feb/14/22 12:49:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

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

Feb/14/22 12:47:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

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

Feb/14/22 12:45:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

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

Feb/14/22 12:42:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

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

Feb/14/22 12:22:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

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

Context: House Hansard - 29 - Feb/11/22

Feb/14/22 11:16:47 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, one of things that we have begun to talk about in the House over and over again is democracy. I think it is incredibly important, when we understand exactly what is going on outside, that people are frustrated with the democratic leadership from across the aisle here. If we do not begin to address these things, if all we do is pass motions that the minority government wishes to have passed, then we are not honouring the democratic process and I take significant umbrage with that. I think that is inappropriate and not what I was elected to come here for. I would really like to hear the hon. minister speak on that.

115 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 28 - Feb/10/22

Feb/11/22 10:27:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, I stand before the House of Commons having been asked to undertake the great task of helping others understand why we should allow free and open debate on a bill that requests to spend $2.5 billion, billion with a “b”, on rapid tests. To some in the government, that may not seem like a great deal of money. However, it is to me and to the constituents I represent in Cumberland—Colchester. Like many of us in the House, I grew up in modest circumstances. I grew up in a trailer park in New Brunswick, where my mother of 88 years still lives. I am not going to stand here and tell people that I went without many things because that would not be true. However, I will say that my father worked hard for the money he made and my mother chose to stay home to raise my brother and me. Some might wonder how this is relevant to spending $2.5 billion. I believe it is important the taxpayers of Canada understand there are those of us who have been elected to the House of Commons who remember their upbringing and choose to understand the value of a dollar. I was fortunate enough to have done well in school and had the great pleasure of attending medical school. However, given my roots, my parents were not able to fund any part of my education. Therefore, I worked different summer jobs, such as building houses, landscaping and building roads. Sadly, all of these things were still not enough for me to fund a medical education, and therefore I joined the Royal Canadian Air Force. This enabled me to be on a much better road financially, and I have no regrets. Around the same time, I met my wife of now 31 years. Some might find this strange, but not long after we had been dating she asked me if I had a budget. At the age of 20, I had met the love of my life, who asked me if I had a budget. In my mind, I did have a budget. I made money in the summer jobs I mentioned. I paid my residence fees, which included my food. I paid for my tuition and all the books I desired and then I spent the rest. That is a budget. The only good thing about such a budget was that I did not have any debt. I had a roof over my head and I had food in my belly. As the years passed, my wife continues to make it clear that, if I had not met her, today I would have no savings for my future. As well, being a physician, I do not have a pension. These are things that concern me. If we do not examine the spending habits of the Liberal government, where is the “pension” for Canadians? If we allow the government to spend unchecked, unabashedly and irresponsibly, then what is going to be left for Canadians in the future? Who is going to pay this massive debt? Do I take it seriously when I think about spending $2.5 billion? I do. It is also important that Canadians realize the context of $2.5 billion. The Canadian median total income is $40,770 as of 2019. In Nova Scotia in 2019, it was $38,080, for people in what they call couple families. For single people, it was significantly less at $30,780. Doing the math on $2.5 billion would give 81,221 citizens $30,780 each, or it would give one person $30,780 for 81,221 years. It is certainly not an insignificant amount of money. Often now in government we throw around huge numbers and sums of money without even giving it its due consideration. It is important people consider the vast amount of money this truly is. Given that Canada's deficit this year is approximately $144 billion, this $2.5-billion expense expected to be passed without any debate is approximately 1.75% of the overall deficit. Once again, to perhaps keep this in context for the everyday Canadians who are raptly listening to the great words I am saying today, this would be equivalent to 40,000 times 1.75%, which is equivalent to about $700. Some may say, sure, they would be happy to give that to a group of people without asking what they would want to use the money for. However, I believe that for the people I represent in Cumberland—Colchester, there is a better-than-average likelihood that they would at least have some conversation as to what the money would be spent on. Do not forget that the $40,000 median income for Canada also means that half of Canadians live on less than that amount. Once again, I would suggest that simply giving out money as requested, without any debate on the matter, is foolhardy and not in keeping with the role we are asked to play here in the House of Commons. Another way to think about it is that the Canadian dollar is approximately 19 micrometres thick. With mathematics, one metre equals a million micrometres, and if I have done the math correctly, that would be a stack of $1 bills, if we still had them, 47.5 metres tall or 156 feet. To try to keep this in perspective, that would be about 28 of me stacked on top of one another. I will give a final example, which is important when we talk about a ton of money. We should think about that. We often say “a ton of money”. If there are $2.5 billion in loonies, that is equivalent to 2.5 billion multiplied by 6.27 grams, which then equals 15,675,000,000 grams. When we multiply this by 0.001, that means we have 15,675,000 kilograms. From kilograms to tons, we multiply by 0.0011, which would then equate to 17,242 and a half tons of loonies. That is a veritable ton of money, or at least a ton of loonies. The other important thing I think Canadians need to be reminded of is the sad state of financial affairs in this great country we all call home. The current federal debt in Canada, according to debtclock.ca, is over $1.2 trillion. That is, oddly enough, about $31,000 per Canadian, or right around the median income. The debt is growing at $424 million a day, or $17.6 million per hour. For those folks out there who perhaps do not usually think about monetary policy or other such things, I believe it is time to give them their due consideration. If someone wants to dig even deeper, my share of the debt when I was born 53 years ago was $688. That gives me reason to pause and gives me great cause for concern. Therefore, when I am asked, we should debate spending $2.5 billion. I think it is important that we do so. Members should have a look at debtclock.ca to understand what a person's personal portion of the debt is at the current time, and how much it is increasing. My colleagues and friends, that is simply talking about the financial aspects of this motion. I also believe it is our democratic responsibility to have our elected representatives constantly and consistently keeping the government in check, and I realize the need for us to do so on this side as Canada's official opposition. That, of course, does not mean we simply have to oppose everything. It does mean that everything should be given good consideration and, when appropriate, given up to vigorous debate. We have seen, during my short time here in the House, that, of course, this is not always the case. Indeed, we have given unanimous consent to a bill. We have also seen another opposition motion to modify the Constitution proposed by the opposition that has passed in the House. For those who wish to simply argue that this is a means to argue a frivolous concept, or something that should very easily pass with unanimity or without debate, clearly that can be done in very particular circumstances. As I have mentioned, we have been able to accomplish this during the past four and a half months in the House. Further, as taken from a lecture given by Larry Diamond in 2004, when questioning what democracy is, he defines it through the following four important concepts: one, a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; two, the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; three, protection of the human rights of all citizens; and four, a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. Of course, in our democracy, the elections that are alluded to above chose the 338 of us sitting in this House to be everyone's proxy, or to voice the opinions that we believe are most representative of those in our ridings. For example, as I mentioned previously, my riding is Cumberland—Colchester in Nova Scotia. Each riding consists of 70,000 or more people. Of course, there are ridings that have significantly more people and those that may have fewer. This then leaves us with the idea of representation from all parts of this great nation. The diverse opinions brought to this House of tradition form all parts, not just geographically, but represent all people who make up the citizenship of Canada. Therefore, we realize it would be very easy to understand that often there is a multitude of opinions as to how the House should proceed. I would suggest that the presentation of said opinions through, as I said previously, vigorous debate would be the underpinnings of how to move forward. Simply acquiescing to the desires of one party or another on issues of great import would seem all but impossible, and not respectful to the rule of democracy and the representation we have been tasked to give to those constituents in our respective ridings. Given my own history, as someone who has served in our military, I would be remiss not to remind all of my fellow parliamentarians of the great sacrifice those who have served in the military, and their families, have given to fight for democracy and the freedoms we hope to enjoy here in Canada. I had the fantastic opportunity to attend the 75th anniversary celebrations of D-Day and be on Juno Beach on June 6, 2019. Certainly, everyone here who has had an opportunity to visit Juno Beach would have had a similar experience. However, the ability to walk on that beach, exactly 75 years in the difference, wearing a military uniform and representing the Nova Scotia Highlanders, was special. This tour allowed us many different opportunities, such as visiting the graves of fallen Canadian soldiers, immaculately kept up by the French, and having the awesome opportunity to speak to and enjoy a beer with Canadian veterans who had aged reasonably well and made the incredible trek back to where they had stormed the beaches 75 years prior. To have had that opportunity to meet, converse with and simply be in the presence of such men is a privilege I shall recall the rest of my life. I think it is short-sighted in any way, shape or form to dishonour the memory of these men in the fight for democracy and against tyranny that they performed on behalf of all of us who have followed them. To bring this thought around democracy to a close, we also had the opportunity at that time to visit the Ardenne Abbey. For those who do not know, on June 7, 1944, 20 Canadian prisoners of war, many from the North Nova Scotia Highlanders regiment with whom I was the honorary colonel, were massacred. They were either shot in the head or bludgeoned to death. Why bring up such graphic detail? These are the individuals who fought for our democracy and against tyranny. These are the men we are tasked to represent here in the House of Commons in our great democratic system. Of course, we all know that the loss of life did not end on June 7, 1944. We are all well aware that soldiers have put on the uniform to defend our country, our way of life and our democracy before these folks I spoke of and ever since this time. We wish to continue to honour and mourn the loss of those souls. Lest we forget. This has reviewed for parliamentarians the vast sum of money the current government is asking us to spend without any debate. At this juncture, I hope there are those out there who realize that this is our sacred duty, not just related to the democratic process for which we were elected, but also in response to the significant sacrifice made by those who have worn a military uniform and allowed us the democratic process that we now represent. I would now like to turn my attention and these remarks to the concept of leadership. Unfortunately, there is a lack of leadership shown by the Liberal government. The uniting voice for all Canadians simply does not exist. Due to the significant number of emails my office receives every day, and I know every office of every parliamentarian across Canada is receiving similar emails, it is very clear that Canadians are not happy with the leadership, or certainly lack of leadership, shown by the Liberal government. When Canadians reach out to their members of Parliament with such grave concerns, I think it even more important that we understand the weight of the democratic process and the need to debate the policies and bills put forth by the government. Canadians are unhappy with the current state of affairs. Therefore, I believe parliamentarians would be remiss in their duties should they not take this opportunity to voice the concerns of their constituents and bring to debate the ideas of the government. As I may have mentioned previously during other debates this week, there is a significant vilification, stigmatization and division of Canadians. It is unclear, at the current time, what the motivation is for this lack of leadership and the division of Canadians, and I think it is germane to once again review the 13 rules of leadership put forth by former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell: 1. It ain’t as bad as you think! It will look better in the morning. 2. Get mad, then get over it. 3. Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it. 4. It can be done. 5. Be careful what you choose. You may get it. 6. Don’t let adverse facts stand in the way of a good decision. 7. You can’t make someone else’s choices. You shouldn’t let someone else make yours. 8. Check small things. 9. Share credit. 10. Remain calm. Be kind. 11. Have a vision. Be demanding. 12. Don’t take counsel of your fears or naysayers. The final one is: Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier. I would say to my friends and colleagues that some of these rules may be debatable and of course do not apply in all discussions, in all areas and in all leadership positions. However, I believe several of them may be applicable at the current time. One might consider, “It can be done”, that things can actually be done. “Remain calm” is very important. “Be kind” is also a great saying, as is, “Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.” As we reflect upon these rules of leadership, perhaps we should ask ourselves the following: What type of leader are we, and what type of leader would we like to follow? What type of leader would benefit Canadians, and what type of leader should lead a nation in a time of crisis? What type of leader should lead a nation during an unprecedented pandemic? What steps should a leader take to protect the citizens of a nation: are there times that mandates, lockdowns and restrictions are appropriate? Should they be time-limited? Should there be a reasonable plan put forward by leadership to give its citizens hope? That would be a novel idea. When nations do not have faith in their leadership, which could be judged by metrics such as the outpouring of emails, political commentary, social media posts and the general uproar being experienced by Canadians at this time, then of course, those of us elected to represent Canadians should take on the responsibility of debating important issues. Issues on which the government wishes we could all just get along and agree with their ideological agenda. Perhaps if we had leadership that was not dividing Canadians, which sought to unify Canadians and was generally agreed upon by Canadians, then the idea of the possibility of agreeing to forgo debate on lofty matters could be considered. As we all know, Canadians feel miserable at the current time. We have heard this before. This, of course, comes from the misery index. Not for one second do I believe that this is solely related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This, of course, is related to a multitude of issues that are gripping our nation: a 30-year high inflation, the loss of 200,000 jobs last month alone, a loss of hope for the future, and uncertainty in our physical and mental well-being. All of these difficulties I place squarely at the feet of the leadership of the Liberal Party. The job of great leadership is to inspire others to want to follow them. It is not to coerce, bully, mock, name-call or frighten them into following. It is to unify people and to recognize, of course, that those things which bind us together in the greatness of this Canadian nation are greater than those things which citizens may think are tearing us apart. Mike Myatt, in Forbes magazine, gave us a leadership job description in 2012. It reads: I would suggest much of what we view today being represented as leadership is actually...a cheap imitation of the real thing by those who are role playing, but clearly are not leading. The article goes on: Leadership isn’t about maximizing a W-2, and it’s not about personal glory or media attention. Put simply, true leadership isn’t about the leader. Leadership is more than a title; it’s a privilege and therefore a burden of the highest responsibility. Nothing is more dangerous than a leader who loses sight of their real purpose—to serve something greater than themselves. I will continue to quote that article, because I think it bears learning what leadership is. It is: Courage, character, humility, vision, wisdom, integrity, empathy, persistence, compassion, aggressivity, discernment, commitment, confidence, a bias to action, the ability to resolve [a] conflict, a servant’s heart, determination, creativity, self-discipline, love, loyalty, outstanding decision making ability, engaged, authentic, transparent, a great strategic thinker, passion, a positive attitude, intelligence, great communication skills, common sense, generosity, the ability to identify and develop great talent, someone who creates a certainty of execution, attention to detail, faith, an active listener, a prolific learner, respect for others, innovative, excellent tactical capability, charisma, extreme focus, a high risk tolerance, a broad range of competencies, and the list goes on… I will end the there, as there is much food for thought in that quote. I realize that was very long. However, I think some of the best writings were embodied in this description of leadership qualities. Not once in there did we hear the words “division”, “stigmatization”, “mocking”, “name-calling” or “villainizing”. Those are not in that list of great leadership qualities. These words are important for all of us parliamentary colleagues, and for Canada in general, to reflect upon, as I believe Canada is now in a crisis of leadership of this nation. This makes it more important for those things we now know are up for debate to be debated. I realize that many of my colleagues simply wish to move on to the topic at hand of rapid tests and their deployment to the provinces for the use of all Canadians. Certainly, the Conservative members on this side of the House have been advocating for the deployment of rapid tests for perhaps 18 months now, almost two years. That is why we are here almost two years into the pandemic and the government is now asking to spend $2.5 billion on rapid tests. Is this now perhaps too little, too late and not at the right time? This has become the motto of the Liberal government. I spoke to one person about it, and we talked about how, as we begin to learn to live with COVID-19, as it becomes endemic and not pandemic, perhaps all of us will simply learn to stay home when we have symptoms. What would the usefulness of rapid tests be at that point? Perhaps that is a rhetorical question. Would it give us any further protection? What is the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid tests? Where do they come from? Are they domestically produced? Should they not be domestically produced? How useful are they in the period before people have any symptoms? During this dynamic time of new science and great controversy associated with my aforementioned remarks, the answers to those questions will be difficult, debatable and downright unanswerable. However, I do think that, should the use of rapid tests give Canadians some increased awareness of the possibility they may have COVID, and we balance this with the false reassurance that they do not, then there may be some usefulness in procuring these tests at this time. Another concern is that, since many Canadians are frustrated and exhausted, unfortunately there is more than an equal chance that many of these tests will sit on shelves and go unused until their usefulness expires. Besides the potential for giving false hope to those Canadians who indeed have the illness but are given a false negative test result, the expiry of these tests on the shelf without being used could be the greatest tragedy of all, after having spent the $2.5 billion the Liberal government is asking for now. Good decision-making is about having the right data, at the right time and in the hands of those capable of making the right decision. Once again, I would say to my fellow colleagues, I would be exceedingly concerned that the government continues along with its decision-making motto of “too little, too late and not at the right time”. I would also suggest it is important the government, along with these tests, roll out a plan for adequate instruction to the Canadian population. Many have had PCR tests in the past, and the possibility of collecting an improper sample using a rapid antigen test is significant. From the current medical literature, it would also appear there is a possibility that collecting a throat sample and then a nose sample may be more accurate. Hopefully it is not the other way around. Of course, many Canadians have seen such news and the actual manufacturer would have to weigh in on those discussions. The most appropriate thing would be to have a national plan with advertising both on social media and on television with video coverage, which would be appropriate to give Canadians good instruction so that an adequate sample would be collected to give the best possible result. This would take time and significantly more financial resources, which would have to be added to the $2.5 billion already requested simply for the tests themselves. Also, we have to understand the hon. parliamentary secretary talked about giving these out at pharmacies for free, which is not unreasonable. We are funding them as a government, but should we expect pharmacists to be the ones who have to instruct people how to use them? That would be unacceptable, and therefore it would be important for the media to help us with that. We looked at budgetary considerations, the massive amount of money and that $2.5 billion is 17 tonnes of loonies. We looked at the issue of democracy and the vast responsibility and history that is behind this democratic institution for which we all have a responsibility and to which we have been elected to support the ideals of our constituents. We have discussed the significant lack of leadership shown by the Liberal government, which in and of itself would necessitate that any legislation brought forward by it would require a debate. We have also talked about the tests themselves and the potential for improper use, the potential for inaccuracies and the potential that they may not be used at all, given the state of this pandemic Canada finds itself in. I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not mention the desertion of at least three caucus members of the Liberal Party. To me, what this suggests is that even within the confines of the Liberal Party, notwithstanding those of us who sit in opposition, there is dissension as to which direction the government should go. This has been supported by several media interviews, and of course by said members. Perhaps even more will follow. If within the party these desertions continue and the dissension continues, how could other parties simply support putting forth a bill without any debate?

4340 words

All Topics