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.
