44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is always nice to rise and speak in the House, but I would rather be debating something other than a gag order.
What is happening once again this morning is that the government has decided to shut down debate on a bill that will cost billions of dollars.
Let us be very clear. On this side of the House, we are in favour of purchasing rapid tests, and I think it is safe to say that all parliamentarians agree on that. For more than a year and a half, we have been pushing the government to purchase and develop rapid tests to give people more tools, so they can get on with their lives, despite the pandemic we are facing. We have no problem with that.
What we have a problem with is the $2.5 billion we are talking about spending. Parliamentarians must at least have a chance to carefully examine each expenditure. As my Bloc Québécois colleague said earlier, that is our job, and we must do it properly.
We are also surprised by the sense of urgency. Why the rush to act immediately? There is no hurry. First of all, the bill, as drafted, is retroactive. This proves that we have already started to act, so there is no immediate urgency.
Better still, if by chance this motion is adopted with the complicity of others, the bill will be passed around 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. I say bravo and thank you, but it will have to go to the Senate, and the Senate is not sitting this week. There is no urgency.
Why is the government creating yet another crisis?
284 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the member for Winnipeg North and to debate with him.
Again, I totally disagree with what the member has said, especially with the motion today.
First, let me be clear. Do not get me wrong. We do support rapid tests. I know what I am talking about, because for the last year and a half here in the House of Commons, we have been asking to have rapid tests as soon as possible. Why? It is because it is one of the tools to get back to freedom, to get back to having more access to everything and to get back to a more so-called normal life, even if we know we will have to live through that period.
My question is quite clear. This bill could be adopted tonight because of this motion tabled by the government. It might be adopted at 2:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, but what would happen then? We would have to wait a full week before the bill could be tabled in the Senate.
My question is quite simple: What is the emergency today? Why not do it correctly, step by step, with the committee studying this $2.5-billion bill? That is the job we have to do here.
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague for Kingston and the Islands. He talked a lot about what our members said, and that is fine. Those quotes are debatable if put into context.
I want to know what he thinks of the following quotes:
I can't help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government have changed drastically since the last election campaign. It went from a more positive approach to one that stigmatizes and divides people.... It's time to stop dividing Canadians and pitting one part of the population against another.
Those declarations were made a week ago by the Liberal MP for Louis-Hébert. What do you think of that?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, although I would have preferred to speak about other matters that are impacting Canadians, such as the runaway inflation that is affecting all Canadian families.
However, as a result of this government's complacency, today we have to discuss a motion seeking to muzzle MPs on a matter that concerns us all.
Let us look at the elements one by one, starting with rapid tests, since that is what we are debating. The government wants to purchase rapid tests, which it will distribute to the provinces, and they in turn will distribute them to Canadians. On this side of the House, we have been asking the government to obtain an adequate supply of rapid tests for almost two years.
If I could make a joke, I recollect very well my colleague for Kingston and the Islands, who quotes a lot of members on this side, talking about rapid tests a few weeks ago. It is sad to me that he has not quoted me, because I have talked about rapid tests for the last 18 months. I would have welcomed a quote from 18 months ago talking about rapid tests, because everybody on this side supports rapid tests. We were the first to ask the government to procure rapid tests.
We must have these rapid tests because they are one of the tools that give Canadians a little more freedom and hope for a return to a more normal life, living with the effects of COVID-19 every day.
Dr. Tam recently said that it may be time to start re-evaluating the health guidelines imposed on us, 75% to 80% of which fall within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. I will come back to that later.
Rapid tests, along with vaccines, mask wearing, regular handwashing and physical distancing when in contact with someone for more than 15 minutes, are some of the measures that will help us get through the pandemic. For months now, almost two years, in fact, we on this side of the House have been in favour of the government purchasing rapid tests for Canadians.
We are talking here about buying 450 million rapid tests at a cost of $2.5 billion, which is a tad more than the parliamentary paper budget. This government has been in power since 2015, for six and a half years, and it promised to run just three small deficits before balancing the budget in 2019. It ultimately scrapped that plan for sound management of public funds.
We will not sign a blank cheque for this government to buy tests. We will not stand by as though all is well and we trust the government to spend $2.5 billion. We have a duty as parliamentarians to be thorough. We have a duty to ensure that the money that Canadian taxpayers send to the federal government is spent appropriately and correctly for the common good.
Over the past six and a half years that this government has been in power, it has proven itself to have no regard for controlling spending. We are in favour of buying rapid tests and supplying them to the provinces so that they can get to Canadians. We do, however, have a job to do.
That is why, although we agree with buying rapid tests and getting them to Canadians, we have some serious concerns that need to be considered. We cannot abide a gag order on a $2.5‑billion purchase. I remind members that the proposed measures apply to purchases dating back to January 1, yet the government is claiming that these measures need to be adopted urgently.
Let us also remember that this is our third week since the House came back. Why wait until week three to invoke closure when they could have done it some other time? As the House leader of the official opposition said, he spoke with his counterparts from the governing party and the other opposition parties in hopes of finding a way to debate this bill properly in the House, send it to committee to give experts their say, and then come back to the House and wrap it up by Friday, all by the book.
If Bill C‑10 is debated today, if the closure motion is adopted and we go through the usual steps, we will end up voting on the bill at third reading around 2 a.m., which will demonstrate the urgency of the situation. However, nothing will actually happen at two in the morning because, for this bill to become law, it has to be debated and passed in the Senate. Now, the Senate is not going to be sitting at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, nor is it sitting on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. It is not sitting until next Monday.
That being the case, why the big rush? They say we have to pass this bill immediately, today, in the middle of the night because it is urgent and necessary, but nothing will actually change for another six days because the Senate will not be able to go ahead right away. That is proof, should anyone need proof, of the government's incompetence. It is once again turning a situation that could have been handled by the book with a proper debate into a crisis.
Speaking of going by the book, I forgot to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, which I am sure will be fascinating.
In short, yes to rapid tests, and no to closure.
Unfortunately, the government has a history of being perpetually late, as we are currently seeing with the procurement of rapid tests. Almost two years ago, in March 2020, when COVID-19 hit the entire world, with everyone aghast, wondering what was going to happen, and the entire planet in turmoil, our globalist Prime Minister was debating whether to close the borders and wondering how dangerous the virus was. It took the government 10 days to do what it should have done long before, which was to close the borders. It is not that we do not like foreign countries—we actually love them. All immigrants are welcome; I am living proof, being the son of immigrants.
However, in a global health emergency, it is important to make the right decisions. Do I need to remind the House that the mayor of Montreal took it upon herself to send her own city’s police officers to Dorval’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport to do the job that the RCMP could not because this government did not want them to do it? That was totally irresponsible.
In addition to the delays at the border, there were also delays in vaccine procurement. Let us not forget the time when the government put all its eggs in the CanSino basket. Unfortunately, CanSino announced in July 2020 that it would not do business with Canada. It was too bad, because we ended up being four months late securing contracts with the Pfizers and Modernas of the world.
Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister put on a big dog-and-pony show when he wanted to suggest that everything was A-okay, even though the government had only a few tens of thousands of vaccine doses. Once again, in typical Liberal fashion, where everything is done for optics rather than substance, another problem arose. There was a 10-day gap in January and February 2021, when there were no vaccines available in Canada.
We have seen one delay after another, the most recent one involving rapid tests. We are disappointed, but should we be surprised that the government has unfortunately decided to put its own partisan political interests ahead of public health interests?
Let us not fool ourselves. I like political debate and good old partisan bickering, but not on matters of public health. The Prime Minister's primary, sacred duty is to unite Canadians on an issue as dangerous, perilous and fragile as this one. He did not do that.
Motivated by partisan politics, this Prime Minister decided to call an election on the public service mandate, which he did against the advice of the top public servant, who was responsible for hiring. It is not for nothing that we saw the member for Louis-Hébert, who was elected for saying certain things, now saying exactly the opposite, namely that he is sad to see his government engaging in polarization, demonization and partisan political attacks on an issue that should in fact unite us all.
That is why we want to say yes to accessing to rapid tests, but no to closure, which prevents us from holding a full debate on this issue.
1479 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me pay my respects to my hon. colleague for the quality of his French. Because his question was in perfect French, I will answer in French.
First of all, I want to point out that any conversations held amongst the leaders about the timing of the debates are private conversations.
However, since my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, the House leader of the official opposition, talked about the conversations that took place, I would say that we could have very easily had a proper debate on Bill C-10 in the House. That is what is so disappointing. We could have done our job here in the House and at committee. We could have asked questions of expert witnesses and gotten to the bottom of things. We are talking about $2.5 billion after all.
Unfortunately, the government has decided to shut all this down, with the support and co-operation of the NDP.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague from Manitoba, who asked a clear question in perfect French.
I will answer the question in French.
That is exactly the type of debate we should be having in the parliamentary committees. The NDP member from Manitoba raised the issue of Bill C‑8 and that is exactly it, because in committee we can propose amendments, make changes, gauge responses and understand why one decision was made over another.
We can question not only the minister, but also the experts who come to guide us in our study. That is why Canadians elected us four months ago and we have a job to do. We have to hold the government to account, and that can be done through rigorous and serious parliamentary work in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, the government is denying us that with a closure motion on Bill C‑10 today.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
