Thank you very much, Chair.
It's interesting that my colleague from the NDP doesn't like to be called the arbiter, although he continues to raise points of order and to attempt to direct the chair of this committee as to how the business should be conducted.
I would suggest that Canadians would find nothing more important, after living now three and a half years under a pandemic with the significant potential always, when we see members from Health Canada appearing with masks on and sitting six feet apart, and the continued threat to move back into masking mandates and requirements to shut down businesses, to have children schooled remotely.... I would suggest that understanding the exact purpose of this is very important.
My colleague from the NDP, of course, would know very clearly, having a legal background that words do matter, and that the difference between “reducing” and “preventing” could, significantly, mean the loss of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars to the Canadian economy and could influence how we actually conduct business in this country, how children are schooled in this country, how people get to socialize in this country, how health care is delivered in this country and, indeed, within the massive scope of this illegitimate bill how food is grown in this country. This has significant impacts on the agriculture industry, and while they continue to say the wording inside the purpose really doesn't make much difference, I would suggest to the members of this committee that it does.
We do know there were significant concerns brought forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and others regarding the bill's impact on the Canadian animal agriculture sector with things that come forward further on in this bill.
If we don't get the appropriate wording of the purpose of this bill from the very beginning.... I would suggest to this committee that if we talk about preventing a pandemic versus reducing the likelihood of a pandemic, there could be a significant problem with respect to how many of these measures could potentially be brought forward in an incredibly draconian way, especially when we know that the significant idea that was brought forward by this Liberal government during the heydays—if I can use that word—of the pandemic was realistically related to the need to divide Canadians and to call them names such as misogynistic and racist. When those divisions are sown, I would suggest to you there are significant and considerable hurt feelings that exist among many Canadians in all different parts of this country.
Getting the wording around preventing versus reducing the likelihood of future pandemics on a worldwide basis will be absolutely essential to how we move forward with respect to this bill. When we begin to look at reducing the likelihood, it can't be underscored enough to be very clear about the need to ask people what freedom they have as Canadians and what their personal choice is when they begin to understand that we're talking about preventing a particular illness versus reducing the likelihood thereof.
For instance, if we are going to prevent illnesses, maybe we should just lock everybody up at home, make them stay there and give them significant amounts of government money. Oh—wait a minute—we already tried that, and when we tried that, we know that the money that was printed flooded the economy and caused this significant 40-year inflation high we now have with interest rates set by the Bank of Canada at 5%. We also know that the fallout from that has been absolutely incredibly bone crushing to the finances of everyday Canadians. People come up to me every day and they say to me, “I don't know how, when my mortgage comes up for renewal, I am going to be able to afford the payments on the interest.” It's not just about not reducing the amount of the principle. What we're talking about is really the inability to make even the interest payments. When we begin to hear those things, the suggestion that there is no relevance or that I should keep my comments about preventing or reducing a pandemic short I find an affront.
Again, I will suggest that allowing one member to think they are the arbiter of verbiage in this committee and of time limits in this committee is absolutely something that cannot be tolerated.
When we look at the comment about preventing versus reducing the likelihood, what we know very clearly is that printing money to hand out during the pandemic was a bad idea. There's no other word for it. Let's be honest in committee and not try to use fancy trumped-up language and just understand that it was a bad idea.
There are people out there who would say it's necessary. Maybe if we looked at the concept of reducing the likelihood versus preventing, then other people could be challenged, such as those folks from the major banks of Canada we invited to come here and other economists we invited to come here to have their say with respect to how illegitimate and ridiculous this particular bill is. Then we wouldn't be in this position now three and a half years after that fateful day, March 13, 2020, when the pandemic was deemed to have hit Canadian shores. Now what we know very clearly is related to the fact that the mortgages of Canadians have doubled since that time, and the price of an apartment has doubled in that time.
We know the cost of goods has inflated to the point where Canadians are really wondering.... As winter is coming, we wonder whether Canadians will be able to feed their families, keep a roof over their heads and heat their homes. This is all related to the fact that perhaps the difficulty was simply related to the Canadian Liberal government at that time taking a decision to attempt to “prevent” as opposed to “reduce” the likelihood.
When we begin to look at all of these incredible things that have happened to the lives of Canadians.... Having served the public for a very long part of my life, I'm beginning to understand.... Now people will call our offices, as members of Parliament. I know, across the aisle, folks over there are getting the same phone calls that we are. They have to be getting the same phone calls, unless they've created some sort of wild conspiracy so that only Conservatives are suffering. We know very clearly that every Canadian is suffering with the cost of living crisis that is continuing because of the money-printing actions of this government.
I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that it certainly may be related to the idea of an attempt to “prevent” as opposed to “reduce” the likelihood of a pandemic.
When we look at these comments to understand whether we believe that speaking out on behalf of all Canadians is germane, useful, should be time-limited or needs to be lectured upon by somebody else in this committee who thinks they have a better idea and wants to get on to amendments they have proposed, when we know very clearly that the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to vote together....
Therefore, we know we need to underline, underscore and underpin the arguments we have, which are related to very specific wording on behalf of Canadians, who are absolutely paramount to the arguments that we put forward. Continuing to suggest that an argument around one particular word is a waste of time or is not a waste of time, realistically, Chair, holds no water for me because I believe words are important.
We already heard some inflammatory words earlier today from another member attending this committee, and we know that words matter. On behalf of the Canadians who elected the 338 of us to be here to simply represent them in the House of Commons, we know that when they reach out to us and tell us they are suffering....
They already know that when they put oil in their fuel barrel this winter, it will cause them significant pain. We know very clearly that, when they spend a thousand dollars putting oil in their fuel tank, which will certainly not last.... It depends on the winter, of course. Oddly enough, we know it's already snowing in Edmonton. I had a message from my brother this morning that there was snow on his deck, and that is a significant problem.
Very clearly, we know the carbon taxes added a thousand dollars' worth of oil, which is essential. It is absolutely essential for Atlantic Canadians to have this—