44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, the hon. health minister suggests that rapid tests have been important to his government. Two summers ago my colleagues and I in the Ontario Conservative caucus tested a rapid test that was widely available in the U.S. and Europe, but had not received approval by Health Canada after months of delays. We were condemned by the Prime Minister and state media. The article is there. Instead of picking up the pace on approvals, Health Canada tried to threaten me and punish the rapid test manufacturer.
If rapid tests are so important to the Liberal government, why has there been a constant pattern of delay and intimidation from it, instead of actually working to get more tests into the hands of Canadians?
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for York—Simcoe is asking why they are important to the federal government. Let me give two examples.
The first is from the regulatory side, which the member mentioned. Health Canada has approved dozens of rapid tests. These are not only antigen tests, but molecular tests. It has approved all sorts of other tests over the past months and years. Canadians expect Health Canada to do its job, which is to protect the health and safety of Canadians, by approving as many rapid tests as it can, but also by making sure that these tests are efficient and safe.
The second reason I can give to demonstrate the importance of rapid tests is as I mentioned. Before December, 2021, on average, provinces and territories were requesting about seven million rapid tests per month. We moved from seven million to 35 million in December, 2021, and then to 140 million rapid tests in January, multiplying by 20 the number of rapid tests available to provinces and territories, despite the fact that every other country on earth was fighting for these rapid tests.
We are doing the right thing, and we are doing it in exceedingly challenging global supply chain circumstances.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Qujannamiik uqaqtittiji.
On January 6, the Government of Nunavut announced it would limit testing to preserve tests only for health care workers. By January 12, the federal government announced that 140,000 tests would be sent to Nunavut. Nunavut's population is more than double that.
Can the minister confirm more than 155,000 tests will be sent to Nunavut so that any resident requiring the test will be able to take it?
Qujannamiik.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a great relationship with Minister Main: my colleague, the minister of health in Nunavut. We have been working together really well, and I want to commend him and his government on their leadership and what they have done over the past few weeks and months. It has been critical for us to do that together, because the people in Nunavut are facing challenges that southerners are not always able to fully appreciate. I want to congratulate them for their collaboration and I would be glad to provide, through my team, more details on the exact numbers and circumstances in which rapid tests have been provided to the Government of Nunavut.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is great to see that we are using chambers of commerce as a delivery tool to get to the small businesses in our communities, so that they can continue to operate safely with their employees having access to rapid tests. The Guelph Chamber of Commerce has been able to distribute tens of thousands of tests in my community. It is a neighbour of ours, and on Wednesdays we see people picking up rapid test kits so their employees can be safe.
Could the hon. member talk about the use of chambers of commerce in our communities to help keep employees safe?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I not only very much like the member for Guelph on a personal level, but also very much value his role and leadership in his community and for his riding as an outstanding member of Parliament.
He mentioned a couple of things that he does with his community in part through working with businesses, small businesses in particular, and through chambers of commerce. Chambers of commerce have been allies, but also leaders in their own communities, helping to deliver rapid tests more efficiently and more quickly because of their role and leadership through businesses that do not always have the time or ability to look for rapid tests.
Small businesses and business leaders have been challenged in the past 22 months. Because of the leadership and partnership on the part of chambers of commerce, we have been able to indirectly support small businesses and protect not only them, but the workers who are essential to their activities.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here we are again having debate shut down by the government, shamefully, and Canadians do not really trust the minister or the government.
We found out last week that, shamefully, the Liberals have been intentionally using a dangerous, divisive and deceptive narrative to infringe on Canadians' charter rights for partisan reasons. They justified their hate and demonization by inferring that unvaccinated Canadians were dangerous, racist, misogynist and spread COVID, while vaccinated Canadians were safe. The Prime Minister even said they were safe to sit beside.
Will the minister, on the record, condemn the Prime Minister's inciteful, hateful speech? I want to know from him, on the record, on what date he and the government became aware that vaccinated people could spread COVID as well as unvaccinated people. What date?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, vaccination is not a punishment. Vaccination is protection. The enemy is not vaccination. The enemy is the virus. When we hear members of the opposite side talk about vaccination as the enemy, I am a bit disturbed by it.
There is a tool we need to use that we were given by science and scientists about a year and a few months ago. If there is a tool we should all be grateful to be using, it is vaccination. Imagine if we did not have vaccines in Canada in February, 2020, with omicron. Let us imagine that. Scientists have given us that gift, and I am troubled hearing views of the Conservative caucus pretending that vaccination does not work and that we should not be using it.
Let us imagine what the situation would be now if we did not have vaccination.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we agree that more rapid tests are needed.
However, Quebec's health care systems and hospitals were already in trouble because of the federal health transfer formula, which does not even cover the increase in health care system costs. As we know, Quebec and all the provinces are calling for health transfers to increase to 35%.
Can my colleague talk to us about this without distracting us with all kinds of other things? What is going to happen with the recurring transfers?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe‑de‑l'Île for the opportunity to speak to this. We must use every tool at our disposal, including PPE, vaccination, antivirals and rapid tests.
Furthermore, the government has supported the provinces and territories by providing $63 billion since March 2022 specifically to keep people healthy and safe, as well as investing over $280 billion in direct support to businesses and workers. That is an example of how the government has already supported and will continue to support the provinces and territories.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the real concerns we have had throughout the pandemic is the huge economic crisis. We saw seniors who applied for CERB, but then suffered clawbacks from the government.
Can we get a confirmation that the government is going to work with New Democrats to speed up payments so that seniors are not losing their homes and their savings, that the government's mistake will be ended immediately, and that we will see funding to the seniors who need it?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would invite my colleague to continue working with my own colleagues, the Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance, on this very important other bill that is before the House. On the commitment for this particular bill, I am very happy to repeat that we are going to report to the House every six months on the use, cost and number of rapid tests that will have been delivered and that will have a beneficial impact for all Canadians in the weeks and months to come.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, while we can understand the urgency of this legislation in some capacity, the Senate does not sit until next Monday. The fact that the government is trying to rush through this piece of legislation without allowing due process and due time for consideration of amendments is a slap in the face of democracy. We really need to have that opportunity, so I implore the government to consider delaying this so we can have the opportunity to have all due consideration of this.
I ask the minister this. Why the rush?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, approximately 130 people die of COVID-19 every day, so that is one example of the sense of urgency. Provinces and territories are requesting the help of the federal government in providing greater numbers of rapid tests, in addition to the substantial numbers I mentioned earlier.
Obviously the Senate is going to do its own job, and we value and appreciate what they will do at the appropriate time. We are in the House of Commons. We need to do our job, and that is why most of today will be focused on the use and usefulness of rapid tests.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 11:33:39 a.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 11:34:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/22 11:34:19 a.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House that today was the first vote called by our table officer Suzie Cadieux. I am sure members will join me in congratulating her.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to rise once again in the House of Commons to continue the debate we began on Friday with respect to a motion not to have a debate. It is shocking.
I had the opportunity to speak on Friday, and I think it is important, given the continued events in the world, that I give a bit of a review on the topics that we covered previously. We are being asked to spend $2.5 billion, and it is important to give a context so that citizens can better understand the exact nature of that amount of money. As I mentioned previously, it is 1.75% of the projected deficit for this year. We speak colloquially about a ton of money, and this indeed is a veritable ton of money. If we talk about $2.5 billion with respect to the mass of loonies that would be, the math would lead us to understand it would be over 17,000 tonnes, in fact. As I said, it is a veritable ton of money.
The point was made very clearly that it is important in a democratic society that we continue to have free and open debate that is based not only on the rules with respect to how democracy works. We also need to continue to remember those who fought and died for our freedom. We must be mindful that we are not disrespectful to the sacrifices those individuals and their families have made over many years for our great nation.
I also touched on the topic of leadership. Given the current events and the dissension we have see in our country over at least the last weeks, months and years, and especially over the course of the last couple of weeks and in what is going on today, it is important to reflect upon the concept of leadership and exactly what being a good leader is and how that unfortunately has allowed us to live in a country that is so divided. Therefore, it is more important than ever to prevent more dissension as we present differing points of view during this democratic process. Furthermore, not only did we give some rules of leadership to ponder, but there was also a litany of qualities or characteristics that would be important for good leadership. Once again, for the sake of brevity, I will not reiterate the entire list, although if we were to read it back, it is quite excellent. Suffice it to say, I do want to be clear: Good hair did not make that list.
Finally, to begin to tie things together, we talked about the divisive language and, of course, that this has led to party dissension among my colleagues across the aisle. They made headlines across Canada for their comments and for fanning the flames of division inside their own party and among Canadians in general. Many members of the House know, of course, the ancient saying that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Members of the House have often heard from the Liberal Party that there were difficulties in our party. This has been brought up multiple times and was brought up as recently as Friday.
An hon. member: Tell us more about that.
Mr. Stephen Ellis: Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleagues on the opposite side want to mock us Conservatives, so to use their language, we shall take no lessons from the Liberal Party.
It has become very clear that the Liberals are asking us not to debate a motion and are asking for $2.5 billion without any type of discussion. It is astonishing given that they are debating such things inside their own party. If the Liberals cannot even get their own caucus to agree on their policies, procedures, actions and deliverables, why would they assume and surmise that those of us sitting opposite them, representing our own ridings in a democratic nation, would be so frivolous as to give them a free pass to simply spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars without any input or discussion from the rest of us elected to the House? As we know, the members who have spoken out against their leader believe that Canadians should not be mocked, stigmatized, divided, set apart and marginalized for their beliefs. Bravo, I say, to those members across the aisle. I thank them for listening.
Those members are willing to stand up on behalf of their constituents and support those values and the belief that all Canadians are Canadians, and as such, are awarded with the same rights and freedoms as each other. Ongoing legal arguments will likely proceed, and it will remain to be seen as to whether the mandates created by the government are infringing upon section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, what is blatantly obvious and crystal clear at this time is that the mis-characterization, mistreatment and mislabelling of Canadians who have chosen, for whatever reason, to not be subject to vaccination, is inappropriate, divisive and uncalled for by the leader of this country.
Also, I think it is important to say, for the sake of clarity, and to once again have it read into the record, that Canada's Conservatives believe vaccinations are an important part of the fight against COVID‑19. We encourage Canadians who are able to be vaccinated. Of course, many of these Canadian citizens have lost their ability to do wage-earning work. As mentioned previously, they have that loss of wage-earning work, coupled with their inability to travel or do many leisure activities, and to then they are called names on top of that. It is like a schoolyard bully winning a fight, taking our lunch money, and then taking our lunch box too. Where does that leave us?
We have had the opportunity to help Canadians better understand the vast amount of money we are talking about here today through the concepts of budgeting stacks of money and by using everyday common sense. We have also had the opportunity today to hear about the debt, the deficit, its ballooning amounts and the difficulties that may play for Canadians in the future. We have also looked at the debt per Canadian and how it has increased over the last 50 years from approximately $688 per Canadian to well over $30,000 per Canadian.
We have examined democracy. I did not go all the way back to the origins of democracy, but we did look at the tremendous sacrifices many Canadians have made in order for the democratic process to be first and foremost in our government proceedings and how we need to honour those who gave their very lives to protect that democracy from tyranny.
Further to this, we examined leadership and some thoughts about what that means. We examined what it means to a country when its citizens feel betrayed and the leadership of a country is off-course, offside or off-putting with respect to its citizens, and how that may affect the ability to pass a bill without any debate.
We know there are nations around the world struggling with their democracies or struggling to become democracies. We know there are countries, such as Ukraine, that stand on the brink of war and invasion, which could perhaps topple a potential fledging democratic nation into the hold of a nation which is, in theory, a federal democratic state, but it would appear the power is concentrated in the hands of a very few people. Over the years, Canada has stood as a beacon of light in the often dark nights of democracy. Immigrants have flocked to our shores looking for a home, to improve their future, to be safe from all forms of political persuasion or coercion, and to be able to celebrate the personal freedoms and rights we have historically enjoyed here in Canada.
Finally, given the unprecedented protest outside these very doors, I would be remiss in my duties as an elected official if I did not take the opportunity to debate the motions that come before this House, unless of course, we are in extreme circumstances, as we were previously with the wonderful vote we had here in the House, on which we all agreed.
As one contemplates the fragility of democracy over the relatively short time Canada has enjoyed status as a democratic nation, we understand the weight of our responsibility as legislators. In the grand scheme of history, 154 and a half years of democracy is a mere drop in the bucket. Democracy needs to be continuously refined in the flames of good process and citizen participation. Therefore, perhaps if we do not, for the sake of debating, spend $2.5 billion, then we do owe it to the continual improvement of the democratic situation to question the hows, the whys, the whens and the whats of what we are presented with in the House of Commons.
Given that we are in an unprecedented pandemic, it is important to realize that several concessions could be made without stopping debate on the bill. There are several opportunities at our disposal, including limiting the amount of debate and expediting the bill to committee, while at the same time, giving the bill its due consideration. Canada's Conservatives have been calling for the approval of rapid tests in Canada for over 14 months. I find it very unusual that it has now become an absolute urgency to spend another $2.5 billion without any consideration at all the changes in science we have seen in this dynamic situation. Perhaps there is an opportunity for a committee to have a very close at this and understand what the experts are saying, and as I have been loathe to continue saying, they are the doctors, not the spin doctors.
In this very House, tests were only being procured in early January 2020. Then, during the unprecedented omicron wave, which was before, during and after the extremely busy holiday Christmas season, the government did not provide any tests for its citizens. There were none.
The government has continued with its motto of doing too little, too late and not at the right time. We went from giving Canadians advice to get a test and have their contacts traced to, during the most precious time over Christmas, advising not to get a test at all because of the government's terrible failure to even procure the tests. Once again, we are in the situation, unfortunately, where the government is asking for 1.75% of its total deficit to buy tests when, as we begin to see the lifting of restrictions on a provincial level, one might question the utility of the tests at all. That is why this motion needs to go to the health committee, so the experts can weigh in.
Given the potential to question the utility of it, it would be even more important. Is it time to spend $2.5 billion on tests that Canadians may or may not use, tests that may sit on shelves until they expire? That would, sadly, see that $2.5 billion wasted. The important thing to understand is that we need to have a look at the science, and the health committee would gladly welcome this, in spite of our Liberal colleagues simply wishing to ram this through using their pseudo-science instead of actual science.
I think it important to understand the enormity of the money being spent, the failed leadership of the government, the affront to democracy and the unprecedented protests outside, and to better understand the dynamic science, as we know and understand more if this is useful. I do know that the spin doctors will try to spin this and say that we do not want tests, but we would like to actually study it to understand if we should be spending $2.5 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money on something that may be useless at this time.
Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended:
(a) in paragraph (a), by replacing the words “immediately after the adoption of this order” with the words “at the next sitting of the House”;
(b) by deleting paragraph (b);
(c) in paragraph (c), by replacing the words “the debate” with the words “Government Orders on the day the bill is considered”;
(d) in paragraph (d), by deleting all the words after the words “if the bill is” and substituting the following: “read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, consideration in committees shall take place the following day, provided that the Minister of Health be ordered to appear as a witness before the committee during its consideration of the bill, and that if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 p.m. that day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, that the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee be instructed to report the bill to the House, by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, no later than three hours before the next sitting of the House”;
(e) in paragraph (e), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “no notice of motions in amendment shall be allowed at report stage”;
(f) in paragraph (f), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “the report stage and third reading stage of the bill may be considered during the same sitting and be ordered for consideration at the next sitting following the presentation of the report”; and
(g) in paragraph (g), by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “when the order is read for the consideration of the bill at report stage, the motion to concur in the bill at report stage be deemed carried on division and the House then proceed immediately to consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, provided that, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders that day or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed on division”.
I thank the House for its time and consideration in using the process of democracy.
2420 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The amendment is in order.
We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities.
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
