44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/27/23 11:27:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to speak about the idea of freedom in Canadian politics because I think, underneath the debate we are having about this budget, there is a deeper debate about the nature of freedom.
What is freedom? Freedom, in the modern context, in common usage, has the sense of describing a reality in which the individual has a broader range of decision-making space. An individual who is free can make more decisions about his or her life, and an individual who is less free has more decisions made for them by others. That is freedom at a general level. Freedom is the general ability to make unencumbered individual decisions, at least as freedom is commonly colloquially discussed today.
I think it is important to notice that, within that general concept of freedom, there is significant divergence among political actors about what kinds of decisions are most important for individuals to be free to make. Every political party has a concept of freedom that comes from identifying different areas of life in which that range of choice making that is available is more or less important.
Obviously, not all decisions are equally important. Certain kinds of decisions are more important than others. To speak of whether a person has the freedom to, say, run a red light, is obviously a trivialization of the concept of freedom because a person who is prevented from running a red light is still substantially free insofar as he or she can still make for themselves all of the decisions that truly matter.
Here is another example. Whether justified or not, a restriction on the ability to purchase alcohol is a lesser infringement on freedom than a restriction on the ability to purchase books because, objectively, the decision to read whatever one wants is more important than the decision to drink whatever one wants.
Therefore, the building of a robust concept of freedom requires a certain prioritization of goods and a sense of what kinds of choices are more important for an individual to be able to make. Every society, for practical reasons, limits the kinds of choices that people can make in certain respects, so a society must decide what choices are more fundamental and what choices can be more reasonably restricted in order to realize other goods.
Another example of this is helmet regulation. I support the limitation on freedom associated with requiring people to wear helmets when riding motorcycles because the choice to not wear a helmet is relatively trivial, and there are other more important considerations. However, I also support religious exemptions to helmet requirements because the freedom to practice one's faith is very important and therefore, in the case of a helmet requirement, it is much more than a trivial limitation to individual freedom. Therefore, in that case, uniquely, it is not justified.
Those who believe in the value of freedom generally believe that limitations on freedom can be justified to the extent that the limitations are trivial and also to the extent that a limitation on freedom produces some other harm. Within that general framing, let us look at the two rival concepts of freedom advanced by Canada's two major parties.
The Liberals came to office with a bit of a freedom agenda. They legalized marijuana and have since decriminalized fentanyl and other hard drugs in B.C. They legalized and have since expanded the space for euthanasia, and they continue to promise a certain kind of expanded individual freedom associated with increasing public spending and subsidy. The idea, from their side, being that people who are given more money by the state have the freedom to do things that they would not otherwise be able to do. These are the areas in which Liberals have emphasized freedom as being most important.
On the other hand, Liberals have actively attacked freedom of conscience through efforts to impose ideological values tests for eligibility for certain government programs. They have limited people's freedom to work in cases where those people do not want to make certain medical choices. They have also imposed effective limits on freedom to work for those who work in certain sectors by imposing onerous regulatory constraints on those sectors and effectively trying to transition those sectors out of business. They have limited people's effective economic freedom by presiding over higher taxes, higher homes prices and higher levels of regulation. Most recently, they have limited Canadians' freedom through the passage of an online censorship bill.
With this government, one is freer to take drugs, choose death and collect money from the government, but less free to follow one's conscience; work; make medical choices; keep one's own money; buy a home, given the state of housing prices; start a business or hear contrary ideas online. That is one approach to the issue of freedom.
Conservatives have, generally, a different set of priorities when it comes to what freedom should look like. Again, this is not just because Conservatives think that freedom is important. It is because Conservatives believe in a hierarchy of goods and an essential character to the human person that leads us to prioritize particular kinds of choices as part of our doctrine of freedom.
Most fundamentally, Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion. These are the most important freedoms. We believe this because we believe that individual human beings are most fundamentally truth and meaning seeking creatures. Freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion are the means through which we find truth and meaning. Therefore, intervention in our lives by the state that limits these freedoms is particularly harmful and dangerous.
Close behind these concepts in terms of importance is the freedom to work, to build and to voluntarily share the fruits of one's labour with others. Protecting the freedom to work, build and share is fundamental to economic prosperity, but actually, the freedom to work, build and share is about much more than just the pursuit of material abundance.
Economic freedom is not just about creating a more prosperous society. It does create a more prosperous society, but there is more to it than that. This freedom, too, is about the freedom of an individual to seek meaning. In order to be able to pursue meaning, individuals must be free to build things that are beautiful and then to look at those things with happiness, happiness in both what has been accomplished and happiness arising from the new thing that now exists. The freedom to build and work is intimately tied with the pursuit of meaning and happiness.
Protecting people's freedom to build businesses, build into their jobs, build things with their hands as part of their jobs and build up strong families and communities is fundamental for human happiness.
Happiness measurement literature actually shows that people who are employed are generally happier, not because of the money they get from working but because of the satisfaction and meaning they get from working.
Incidentally, the loss of satisfaction is why I am so strongly opposed to government policies that pay people more for not working than they pay people for working. Poorly constructed benefit programs have robbed so many Canadians of the opportunity to feel the satisfaction and meaning that comes from work while still being able to provide for their families. It is terrible that people have been forced to choose between having enough money to provide for their families and working by government programs that effectively pay them more to not work than they are able to receive through working.
As someone recently asked me, what is the essence of being Conservative? I thought about it and I came back with this: The essence of being a Conservative is to believe in building beautiful things that last.
Liberals have a hard time with the “building things that last” part, often relying on the insecure foundation of deficit spending, but, more fundamentally, Conservatives understand that unleashing a free economy in which people can build things that they want is not just about prosperity. It is also about the happiness that accrues to individuals for being able to invest of themselves in creating something new and beautiful.
Conservatives are champions of the idea of freedom, but a particular kind of freedom. The concept of freedom that we are championing is human freedom, freedom rooted in an understanding of what is important in human life and of the kinds of pursuits that lead to meaning and happiness.
Sadly, this budget does not advance our vision of human freedom. It doubles down on the belief that higher taxes, higher spending and a kind of behind-the-scenes prodding but still highly interventionist industrial policy is going to produce the kind of country that we want.
I was particularly struck by chapter 3 in the budget. The ineffective so-called affordability measures at the beginning of the budget read to me like a kind of late-stage add-on for political reasons by the government.
I think the heart of where the government wants to go with this budgetary policy is in that later chapter.
It is its belief that they can push the economy toward its preferred vision of an economy of the future through massive public spending and through selective privileges for certain sectors while piling on additional barriers for other sectors that are not preferred.
This is still the steel hand of the state picking winners and losers but trying to wear a velvet glove in the process.
I think what our country truly needs is a budget rooted in this concept of human freedom that I have outlined, a budget that seeks to give people more space to create beautiful things that last.
Canadians are sick of a government that is content to let people choose drugs and choose death, but does not want to let them choose to keep more of what they have worked for and built on their own.
We need a government that gives people the space, the encouragement and the freedom to build beautiful things that last.
1695 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 11:38:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us answer the question in terms of freedoms.
If we look at the many projects that have been proposed for this country, various kinds of development projects in various regions, in various sectors, I think of many examples, in particular in my part of the country, of projects that have been entirely viable based on private sector funding, would have created massive numbers of jobs and the government, in some cases, piled regulatory barriers on those; in some cases shut them down directly at a late stage. We have certain kinds of projects where the government is shutting them down even though they are viable in terms of private sector investments and other areas where the government is pouring massive public subsidies in order to get some kinds of developments to take place.
I want Canada to be a country where any business can invest in any sector and grow without the kinds of barriers the government has been putting in, but where the government is not presuming to say this sector is one we like and this sector is one we do not, but where in fact the opportunities and the benefits are available for all sectors.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 11:41:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously this omnibus budget implementation act contains many different kinds of measures. We are going to find pieces here and there where we say, yes, we agree with that, but we have to vote overall on the direction of the budget.
I think there has been a great deal of unity in this House on many issues to do with Ukraine. In fact, where we have been critical of the government with Ukraine is where it granted exemptions to sanctions, where it failed to be tough in moving sanctions forward early enough or implementing them fully.
For one example, we spent a long time trying to push the government to rescind a waiver it gave to Gazprom, effectively allowing the export of turbines that would have facilitated the export of energy from Russia to Germany. We think it would have been better to be promoting the export of Canadian gas to Europe to relieve their dependence on Russia, rather than the government's decision to grant a temporary waiver that could have helped Russia export its gas to Europe and, at the same time, not acting to allow Canadian gas exports to Europe.
There has been a substantial measure of unity. If anything, certainly, we have been pushing the government to go further in its response to these events and, in particular, recognizing the role Canada can play in supplying the world with clean, secure, stable energy.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 12:00:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government has a habit of prioritizing the interests of its well-connected friends by giving money to consultants that could be better spent on helping and supporting Canadians.
For a number of months, Conservatives have been highlighting the government's approach to McKinsey, in particular. McKinsey was led by Dominic Barton, someone who at least the Prime Minister and the finance minister said were friends of the Prime Minister. Dominic Barton said, no, they are not friends, that he barely knows these people. However, the finance minister spoke about how closely connected he was with the Prime Minister and that he was someone who was very accessible and could be reached on the phone at any time, and so forth. We have some contradiction there about who were or were not friends.
In any event, Dominic Barton, this person who worked closely and was closely associated with the Prime Minister and finance minister, was leading McKinsey and since the government has taken office, McKinsey has gotten over $100 million in contracts from the government, over $100 million, which is a massive increase.
We have seen, by the way, substantial increases in spending on the public service, but, at the same time, massive increases in spending on outsourcing. There is the expenditure issue there, the fiscal propriety question of all the money that was spent on McKinsey, big questions about what it actually did after giving money to this external management consultant that was run by Dominic Barton.
There is also this question of who McKinsey is. What are the ethics of this company? What are the values this company upholds and represents? It claims to be a values-driven company, so-called. This is a company that fuelled the opioid crisis in the United States, Canada and elsewhere. It fuelled it by advising Purdue Pharma on how to turbocharge opioid sales. It advised it to do things like pay bonuses to pharmacists in cases where there were overdoses. It advised it to develop a system of circumventing traditional pharmacies through mail-in pharmacies. This is the kind of company that McKinsey is.
McKinsey did a report for the Saudi government on what Twitter accounts were most vocal in criticism of the Saudi government. That report was subsequently used for the harassment and repression of dissidents.
This is a company, frankly, that has been implicated in corruption and scandal all over the world, at least in dealing closely with governments or individuals that were highly compromised.
It was hired here in Canada to provide advice on immigration. It was hired in the U.S. as well to provide advice on immigration. Apparently, in both cases, it provided what the governments wanted, even though that advice was contradictory. In Canada, it said to massively increase immigration as it is a great economic opportunity. In the United States, it advised the Trump administration to cut spending on food for immigrant detainees. This is the kind of company that McKinsey is, run by Dominic Barton, who the Prime Minister and the finance minister suggested was a friend, but he said he was not a friend, in his view. His company benefited significantly.
What I find particularly striking now is the revelation that the government is actually planning on joining B.C.'s class action lawsuit against McKinsey. The government has indicated that it plans on joining B.C.'s class action lawsuit against McKinsey precisely because of its role in the opioid crisis. The government has, across departments, hired McKinsey to do over 100 million dollars' worth of work for it, but there is a tacit acknowledgement of the ethics problems because now, at this stage, after doing nothing for a long time, following pressure from the Conservative leader, it finally said it would join this lawsuit again McKinsey.
Which is it? Will the government recognize that it should stop dealing with McKinsey and that it should stop spending all this money on outside consultants?
664 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 12:08:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think my friend across the way really understood the question. Aside from dipping fishing rods in different holes, the question was about McKinsey getting over $100 million in contracts from the government. The member says that I try to make things look as bad as possible. Respectfully, it is not very difficult in this case. This is a company that literally advised on how to turbocharge opioid sales. It paid over half a billion dollars in compensation for its involvement in the opioid crisis.
The question is quite simple: Why did the government give over $100 million in contracts to this Liberal-connected firm with such an obviously shady track record? Why?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
