- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Cumberland—Colchester
- Nova Scotia
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,737.37
- Government Page
- Mar/28/23 3:03:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are facing being caught in the vice of a cost-of-living crisis, the current Liberal government has done nothing but crank the handle. Rather than merely being content with raising the carbon tax, the tax on everything, the government is still spending millions upon millions of dollars on outside management consultants, and I have been schooled on being careful about that. There is something broken when the current Liberals cannot seem to understand that the spending is an inflationary dollar upon dollar. Why is the Prime Minister more focused on helping his high-priced Liberal consultants than on helping everyday Canadians?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 3:05:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very thankful for that response, because we do have an ideology on this side. That is to stand up for Canadians.
After eight years of spending, the Liberal government is out of money and Canadians are out of patience. Let me cite a few examples of the Liberals' crazy spending: $2 billion to a company that does not even exist, $100 million to the Liberal friends and of course to the Liberals' buddies at McKinsey, and also up to $750 million to a company that is now going out of business and shutting its doors. When will the government stop spending and give Canadians a chance to thrive?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/23 3:03:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing to think that we are going to lose $750 million and we should be accomplices to that. It is shocking.
Clearly, the government has become dependent on outside spin doctors for new ideas because, guess what, it does not have any of its own. It is exhausted and hopefully it has given up. Who is paying the price for all the Liberals' foolishness? Canadians are. There has been $104.7 million spent on contracts gifted to McKinsey, all because the Liberal government cannot be bothered to do its own work. When can Canadian people expect a full accounting for this ridiculous spending?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 3:06:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are two billion dollars' worth of waste with respect to vaccines. The Liberal government would want us to believe that tracking these vaccines and their expiration dates is extremely difficult, because it has not been done before. In reality, quite obviously, thousands of businesses track their inventory every day. Once again, the government of inaction has failed Canadians. It is incapable of managing passports; it is incapable of managing border crossings, and it certainly cannot balance a budget.
Will the Liberal Prime Minister stand up and admit that his wasteful government is driving up prices for home heating, gas and groceries for all Canadians?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise here in the House of Commons to look at the economic situation that exists out there for Canadians. Certainly, to say that it is a dire, difficult and unpleasant situation is a misrepresentation.
I would like to point out the misrepresentation of the House by the members opposite. They are claiming perhaps their clairvoyant nature of understanding what the government over here might propose when we get to sit on the other side. As we all know, it is not our job as the opposition to present those cards, which we will hold very close to our chests, and we will make the economic picture much better for Canadians as we take office.
I would like to focus my remarks on the fall economic statement with respect to Atlantic Canada, and, to no surprise, the carbon tax and how it affects Atlantic Canada. I will also focus on the significant growing debt, the programs the government has introduced and perhaps try to make it a bit personal for Canadians as they try to balance their own budgets with difficulty.
When we look at Atlantic Canada in the fall economic statement there is absolutely nothing specific in there. There is really not much talk of Atlantic Canada at all. We find that very surprising given the fact that we all know that Atlantic Canada is still reeling from hurricane Fiona. I just came here this morning. There are still trees down everywhere. Multiple businesses are still affected by hurricane Fiona, and they are unable to get back on their feet again. Certainly, there are still many homes with significantly damaged roofs. How are we going to move forward?
We asked the ACOA minister to come and specifically have a look at some of the things going on in Cumberland County, which was one of the hardest-hit counties in the entire area. Sadly, that minister did not show up. When we asked the minister's office to provide information as to how the $300 million in pledged money was going to roll out to Atlantic Canadians, the answer was that it did not know yet. There were no details.
It has been a long time since the hurricane happened. For a government to not be able to roll out the pledged money, which Atlantic Canadians specifically so desperately need, is creating more problems. In fact, I had a call with the Canadian Red Cross this morning, and it was pointed out that the applications for its program are now closed, and I will get to that in a second. The Red Cross is seeing many Nova Scotians reaching out from a very difficult financial spot, hoping to get support not only with respect to the hurricane Fiona damage but also from a social services point of view. They are really struggling.
We know very clearly from words in the House that 1.5 million Canadians have visited food banks, and 20% of Canadians are cutting back on the food they consume simply for financial reasons. We know as well from my call with the Red Cross that the $31 million generously pledged by Canadians and matched by the federal government is now gone. It is $500 for about 124,000 households. That is $62 million. There is not going to be more money forthcoming from the Red Cross.
What other difficulties are we facing as we move forward in 2022? Of course, it is winter, and we know from this budget that difficulties will continue to exist. I have spoken here previously with respect to the words of the Premier of Nova Scotia. It is so bad out there with this carbon tax, which has been foisted upon Nova Scotians, that there is a petition circulating to buck the trend and attempt to not be required to succumb to the heavy burden of the carbon tax.
We know that by 2025 it is going to cost the average Canadian $2,200 and by 2030 it will cost $3,100. This is in a population that was not really mentioned in the fall economic statement at all. It is in a population that, sadly, feels the significant burden of what is going on in the world with the increasing interest rates and rising costs of everything very acutely. Imagine a provincial government starting a petition to try to get away from this burdensome carbon tax that is being foisted upon Nova Scotians.
We know that the cost of gas, groceries and home heating is continuing to increase. We know that the premier and the Government of Nova Scotia understand this clearly, but we have a government across the aisle that is continuing to spend and very sadly hoping that the budget is going to balance itself. That is a budget that has a debt of almost $1.3 trillion. We also know that this is a government that continues to spend money. It has been said in the House, perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, that it is spending it like a drunken sailor. However, being mean to drunken sailors is no way to live.
We also know that estimates would suggest that the cost of the interest on this debt is going to be about at least $27 billion. In 2026-27, it could be as high as $42.9 billion. That is with the conservative estimates, not ours but budget expert estimates, that interest rates would perhaps stay the same as they are.
We also know that if it does not hold true and interest rates are one point higher than planned, the interest costs would move from $42.9 billion to $52.2 billion in a single year, in 2026-27, which is $9.3 billion. That is no small amount of change. In my mind it does not make any sense. Even when we look at $27 billion, we understand that is about 10% of the revenue of the federal government simply being spent on interest charges. The government continues to spend, which absolutely makes no sense.
To put it another way, over four years, the interest on this amount of debt is going to cost the government $180 billion. This is spending money as if it were water. To try to make it personal for Canadians, if I could not balance my budget, which I am thankfully able to, and there have certainly been years when my family has struggled, we would look at what we could do differently. We would cut our discretionary spending.
We would talk about maybe, in today's terminology, not getting the latest cellphone, not going out to eat, not going out to the movies and those things that everybody would say are “motherhood and apple pie” statements. People would say that if we cannot balance our budget, we are not going out to eat. We are going to stay in, buy the groceries, which are also expensive, and cook. We would not also add costs. We would not put a new front porch on our house. That really would not make a whole heck of a lot of sense when we still could not balance our budget.
However, the costly coalition across the aisle continues to add programs that add to the debt load of Canadians. I find it somewhat disconcerting and disingenuous that, across the aisle, they continue to say that over here we do not support those who are struggling. We certainly do. It is a little bit like letting the cat out of the bag about what we might do over here. We would not go at it by continuing to spend more money and throwing a $500 cheque here and a $500 cheque here and $200 there.
Imagine this. Regular Canadians are sending in their budgets for the month by email and asking me where I think they should cut or get more of their money. Obviously that is not my area of expertise. Given that, I find it absolutely incredible that people are saying that they do not know what else to do or what else they should be doing. We know, when we look at a budget from a household in a global sense, that having $500 more is really not going to help very much at all.
We know that Canadians, including Nova Scotians from my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, are continuing to struggle under the incredible burden that they feel from the reckless spending of the government. We wonder how they are going to feed their families and how they are going to heat their homes this winter. We know that the worst is yet to come. That is exceedingly disheartening for people who are already hurting. Canadians cannot afford the government anymore, and we cannot support the fall economic statement.
1474 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise here in the House of Commons to debate legislation. I have reflected upon this bill. We had time to see it in committee, though very little time I might add. We had little time with stakeholders and very little time in front of ministers to debate this bill, which is, sadly, a gateway to spending $11 billion of taxpayer money.
For that fact, here in the House, having a motion to end debate on this bill very quickly and have it rammed through is a difficulty. That is the same experience that we had in committee. I am unsure why there is an urgency with this bill, other than it really panders to the political aspirations of those across the aisle and their costly coalition dance partners, which, as I mentioned, will jack up the costs for all Canadians as we move forward.
Everybody in the House wants to have their sound bites and their clips for social media. All that type of stuff is potentially important. What I am going to say, I know, will be taken out of context and that is why it is important to preface it in that sense.
There is not a dental crisis in the country. There is no reason we had to run this bill through in this warp-speed manner and try to ram it down the throats of those of us who would suspect we need much more prudence in how we approach spending money in this House and exactly where we spend it, which is important. It would have been much nicer if this were a mental health and rental bill as opposed to the dental health and rental bill. Why would that be more important? We know, and everyone in the House can attest to it, that there is a mental health crisis in this country that is not being addressed and that is the darn shame of it all. This is about where we choose to spend our money in the House, and the difficulty is that we do not have unlimited amounts.
I always liken this to my own finances. When there are urgencies, when the roof is off the house, people have to put the roof on before they put the front step on. Sure, they are both absolutely important, but we have to look at priorities. We have to understand that a roof on the house is, sadly, more important than the front step. Do we need them both? Yes, we do.
That being said, there is a mental health crisis in this country. One in three Canadians throughout their lifetime will have significant problems with their mental health. We see it in the news every day. We see it from our loved ones every day. We know that the government is not funding mental health. It is an odd fact that the commitment the Liberal government made in its 2021 platform with respect to mental health has not been spent or committed to in its current budget. That is a huge difficulty. The irony is not lost that the cost of that Canada mental health transfer would be about $875 million. When we look at the costs in this bill, the exact amount is very ironic. This money could have been spent on the Canada mental health transfer, which would have done so much for Canadians who are in that significant crisis.
We need to look further at all of those things that we hold very dear here in Canada, and one of those things is people's access to our great Canadian health care system. From the president of the Canadian Medical Association, we know that this system is on the brink of collapse. It too is in crisis. It is a catastrophe. It is a disaster and, sadly, any other negative superlatives that I could come up with.
We know that in my home province alone, 100,000 people, or 10% of the population of Nova Scotia, do not have access to primary care. The sad fact is that we also know, when people do not have access to primary care in Canada, it becomes very difficult to access care for mental health. Further to that, we know that there are approximately one million people in Ontario who do not have access to primary care. Therefore, is there a crisis out there? Yes, there is.
I know that my words will be taken out of context and misconstrued; however, that being said, there is a crisis. It is not in dental health care. It is in mental health care and in the health care system in general. I would be so bold as to say that, if we wanted to ask Canadians how we should spend their money, I would suspect that they would say to spend it on mental health care and spend it on health care, and once that part of our house, the roof of our house, is in better shape, we can put on a front porch or a front step. That makes perfect sense.
I think the other part around the dental part of this program is understanding that 11 of 13 jurisdictions in Canada do have dental programs for their citizens. I think it is also important that the Canadian Dental Association stated that a better idea than creating this “Ottawa knows best” federalist program would be to actually help tweak those provinces that are struggling and look at provinces that have excellent dental health care programs, and then help other provinces better understand how they could make a better program.
I think the other part that flows very nicely into that is understanding that the administration of this program, although purported to be very simple, is in the hands of a government that cannot manage other simple programs, even programs that have been in existence for decades.
Let us talk about passports, for instance. The passport system, as far as I can discern in my own life, has worked in an excellent fashion for a very long time. We would get a piece of paper in the old days. We would then sign it. We would get a guarantor, and we would put it in the mail to send it away. Lo and behold, almost as if by magic, our passport would show up in the mail. Nowadays, we do not need guarantors. It has become even simpler than that, but the government has bungled that as well.
It is the government of “everything is broken”. The immigration system is broken. We have an arrive scam app of $54 million that the Liberals cannot even account for. Not only is it exorbitant in its cost, but they also cannot even account for $1.2 million. Who got paid? Who got rich? Those questions cannot even be answered.
How can we ask them to administer another supposedly simple program? If we cannot even run the programs that have existed for decades, how can we create a new program and say there will be no problems with it? How can we tell people to look at how easy it is and that anybody would be able to access it, when we know we cannot even get a darned passport in this country?
We know the immigration system is broken. We hear that 40,000 Afghans are going to come to Canada, but less than half of that number of people have been admitted to this country. This is a crisis. The Liberals cannot function in a crisis, and we know perhaps that is the difficulty. They are unsure, unaware or uncertain of exactly what the definition of the word “crisis” is. I think that, perhaps, is the difficulty.
We also know the Liberals have bungled the whole greenhouse gas and carbon emissions situation. We know they have not met any of their targets, and we now know their provincial Liberal cousins in Nova Scotia are railing against them. We know that for the average Nova Scotian, the premier of Nova Scotia rejected the carbon tax for a more robust, complete and overall well-performing system. He rejected their carbon tax system. Even though it is being rammed down the throats of all Nova Scotians, it would appear it is going to cost $400 per year extra on top of the insane prices of home heating fuel, and we know that is going to create significant difficulties for Nova Scotians this year.
The rental program, we know, is in response to the Liberals' failed housing strategy. We know it is a band-aid approach, and when the patient is haemorrhaging, putting a band-aid on it is like the old story with the little boy with the dike. We will run out of fingers eventually.
We know the average rental cost here in this country is $2,000 per month. We know the cost of housing has doubled, and we know people are living in their parents' basements. The unaffordability is just astronomical, so we have a government that is spending money. Not to be disparaging to drunken sailors, but the Liberals are spending like that. I apologize to drunken sailors.
The Liberals cannot run programs, and now they want to create another “Ottawa knows best” federally directed program that is likely to be a significant debacle.
1577 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
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
