COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Patriotism, pride and self-perusal

The past two weeks, the world came together for the Olympics. Emotions ran high and national pride shone brightly, as the athletes showed off their hard work. Congratulations to all our athletes.

The world enjoyed healthy competition, patriotism and energetic passion all woven together.

It was encouraging to see—especially in light of world events such as conflict, war, religious persecution, poverty and trafficking, to name a few.

Closer to home, the trade dispute has raised tension, and made people more sensitive. When pressure lasts a long time, it changes how we see things. When a relationship is strained, we begin to interpret actions differently.

Emotion can cloud judgment. We assume motives before we look at the facts. If we trust someone, we give them the benefit of the doubt. If we do not, we question everything they do.

The facts may not change, but the meaning we attach to them does.

That’s the question journalist Brian Lilley is asking. In his recent column, Lilley asks whether heightened emotion is driving Canadian policy and political opinions. And if that is the case, that’s a danger. To make his point, Lilley references the recent polling reported by Politico which suggests that many Canadian adults now believe it would be better to align with China than the United States — and that nearly half see the U.S. as a greater threat to global peace than China or Russia.

That should give us pause.

Let’s review that assessment. China has interfered in our elections and intimidated, detained and harassed Canadian citizens. On the other hand, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has resulted in staggering casualties, with the BBC reporting hundreds of thousands dead or wounded. Whatever one thinks of American leadership, it strains credibility to suggest the United States is Canada’s greatest threat to sovereignty or peace. When asked the question of who our greatest threat was in the last election, Mr. Carney without hesitation, called out China. What has changed?

And yet, in today’s discourse in the media and across Canada, blaming U.S. President Donald Trump has become almost reflexive. But why are we crediting him for decisions that made us vulnerable long before the current trade tensions?

Over the past decade, Canada has made bad policy decisions.

In a cover story by the National Post, it was reported that after 2017, security checks and screening protocols were eliminated, amid a surge of illegal border crossings. The article referenced the C. D. Howe Institute report — authored by a former director of policy at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Just last week, The Globe and Mail sparked online debate with the headline asking how Canada had become poorer than Alabama, highlighting troubling GDP comparisons.

This, all while Canadian families are fighting an affordability crisis and struggling to put food on the table.

Now, we have discovered that the interim federal health program has more than quadrupled in four years — from $211 million to $896 million — with projections reaching $1.5 billion by 2029–30. The program provides non-citizens, including failed asylum claimants, access to supplementary benefits such as vision care, dental and physio and a host of other benefits — coverage many Canadian citizens themselves do not receive.

Our fiscal woes remain a concern. The nonpartisan Parliamentary Budget Officer recently reported that the government’s third supplementary estimates adds another $5.4 billion in spending on top of an already projected $78 billion deficit.

Every dollar spent is a dollar from Canadians, who ultimately are paying the bill.

As the official opposition, Conservatives cannot undo past decisions. But we can keep trying to make things better for Canadians. This week, we tabled an opposition day motion calling for reforms to the interim federal health program. The motion urges the government to:

– review federal benefits provided to asylum claimants in order to find savings for taxpayers;

– restrict federal benefits received by rejected asylum claimants to emergency lifesaving healthcare only;

– provide transparency on federal spending on the IFHP by providing an annual report to Parliament, particularly regarding supplementary benefits which Canadian citizens do not have access to; and

– pass policies to immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crime in Canada. Nations, like teams, face obstacles. Trade disputes are real. Global tensions are real. But emotion cannot drive effective policy.