- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Cumberland—Colchester
- Nova Scotia
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,737.37
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, $10 billion is the number that we need to understand very clearly in the House that this bill is going to cost Canadians.
We also understand that perhaps what the minister is saying could be nuanced a bit in the sense that 11 of 13 jurisdictions have dental programs at the current time for low-income and special needs children. There is also the NIHB program.
Perhaps the minister would want to nuance what he has said around that a bit. However, $10 billion is the real reason we should not have closure on this bill. We should have very robust and open debate with respect to how we spend Canadians' money.
114 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
