44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 4:54:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said it. How do we keep this going? We cannot forget. I mentioned in my speech the lessons that are to be learned from this and the whole pandemic experience. It really has exposed the deep crevices in our society, the inequality.
I know the member for Winnipeg Centre talked a lot about wealth inequality, particularly poverty. There are so many things we need to tackle, but the key is do it together. That is the unity I want to see in the House.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.
Today, I must oppose the Prime Minister's unjustified and draconian invocation of the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada. Like so many watching from home in Lakeland, I am struggling with the events of the last two days. Seared in my mind are images of fellow Canadians literally and metaphorically trampled, pushed back, struck down, driven out and away by the might, scope and scale of the unrestrained power of the state.
Like many colleagues here, I have lived, worked and walked in the downtown Ottawa core for the past three weeks, and my truth is this: The most violence, obstruction and tension I have witnessed started on Friday. My constituents are asking what is going on here and how the heck did it all come to this?
Canadians have faced emergencies and threats; plane bombings; lengthy armed standoffs; threats of terrorist attacks; 9/11; massive riots; critical infrastructure and mine bombings; prolonged biker gang wars; year-long housing development occupations; mass shootings; churches deliberately burned to the ground over several months; blockades on rail lines, ports, bridges and highways, some which lasted for more than a month; flooding; droughts; wildfires; and even the possibility of foreign invasion. Canadians came through each of these tests—
223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:56:02 p.m.
- Watch
I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but can members bring the noise down? I think it may be outside the chamber, but it is becoming very noisy, and I can hardly hear the hon. member for Lakeland.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians came through each of these tests, all of them emergencies, many involving deaths, injuries, significant and expensive property damage and major economic impacts, without the legislation that is designed only for crises where there are no other options, which we debate with heavy hearts today. Canadians always unite to defend our safety and security without violating the rights and civil liberties so many of our relatives fought and died for, which define us as a country and are the bedrock of our peaceful, free democracy.
Canada has been a beacon to the rest of the world for our respect of enshrined rights, like free expression and peaceful assembly, and for a commitment to protect and defend them in the face of threats and emergencies. We look back on times when that balance was tipped with shame and apologies. That beacon's light has dimmed during the last six years. Today, it is nearly extinguished by the actions of the Prime Minister. He is setting a dangerous and unwarranted precedent, evocative of the response of authoritarian regimes to dissent, protest and opposition.
The Prime Minister created this crisis from beginning to end. He called the marginalized 10% of Canadians who have chosen, for various and private reasons, to not be vaccinated “misogynist”, “racist”, “science deniers”. He said Canadians who travelled to Ottawa to demonstrate and ask for an end to government mandates and lockdowns are conspiracy theorists who hold unacceptable views. His actions imply that they are terrorists. Terrorism, by the way, must involved bombings, shootings and kidnappings, as legally defined, none of which have happened in Ottawa in the past three weeks. Of all these fellow Canadians, he actually bemoaned that they take up space and asked, “Do we tolerate these people?”
Let me say that I hope there is room for every Canadian to exist, to take up space, no matter their views on vaccines or any government policy, whether I agree with them or not. Whatever happened to respect, tolerance and diversity to resisting the tyranny of the majority? It is chilling to think a prime minister would wedge, divide and stigmatize his fellow Canadians for his personal partisan purposes, but so he has done. More than a few people from Lakeland have pointed out that it sure went from a fringe minority to an emergency in a hurry. It would almost be amusing if it weren't so grave.
Let us remember what is going on here. Three years in, we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and untold government-caused harm to families, businesses, mental health, kids' learning progress, jobs, relationships, travel. After so much isolation, fear, stress, confusion and restrictions, for which there was inconsistent or no evidence of efficacy, the Liberal government refused to do what many developed countries and most provinces are doing already, which is to end the increasingly pointless mandates. Conservatives simply asked for a plan to do so two weeks ago, and the Liberals said no. The Prime Minister attacked and then refused to meet or hear from Canadians with whom he disagrees, and he has imposed his heavy-handed will despite the strong opposition of seven provinces.
The Emergencies Act was never designed nor intended to be used to limit the rights of Canadians who express opposition to government measures. I confess that I do have trouble seeing how parked trucks, bouncy castles, a big daily barbeque, ball hockey, Canadian flags, singing and donations for the homeless in front of Parliament meet these criteria. The Emergencies Act requires threats to the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada, including serious violence against persons or property and impediments to democracy are a “urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces or territories”.
Does this all add up? Well, the short answer is no. First, provincial governments and law enforcement has already used and can continue to use existing measures and tools to disperse protests and clear borders in B.C., Manitoba, Quebec, the Windsor-Detroit bridge in Ontario, and in Alberta, where a group with firearms were disavowed by demonstrators and the mayor confirm was not connected with them. This was all done through negotiation with law enforcement and, frankly, with common Canadian decency, all before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
Second, we MPs have been coming right here to do our jobs in the literal seats of Canadian democracy every day for the last three weeks, except for the Friday after the Emergencies Act was imposed. Third, the recent clearing of protesters from Ottawa on charges such as mischief used existing laws, while even the lawyer who secured the injunction against honking, with which truckers complied, is against the Emergencies Act.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association puts a fine point on it. It said:
This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: [It] allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes....
Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.
The CCLA has taken the government to court over it.
The impacts of the Emergencies Act are wide-ranging and severe, and violate fundamental Canadian values. Regulations stipulate that kids who have been hanging out happily, as if they were at a carnival, will not be allowed within 500 metres of their parents or guardians if they are involved in protests. The Liberals evidently believe separating children from families or guardians is legitimate. Anyone who does not agree can get a $5,000 fine or five years in prison while Canada is under the Emergencies Act. The same penalties will apply to anyone who participates directly or who brings aid, such as food or fuel.
As someone of Ojibway descent, I thought by now we had agreed in Canada that it is morally repugnant and wrong for the government to separate children from their parents or guardians unless the adults are harming them. How callous of the Liberals to be prepared to ensure those Canadians are deprived of food and fuel. Apparently, pets are targeted as well.
The Emergencies Act enables the freezing of the personal and business bank accounts of anyone directly or indirectly linked to the protests without a court order or due process. The rules will cover cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding platforms also. It is already happening to my constituents. One guy who never came to Ottawa or donated 25 bucks. Another woman's business account was shut down. She said that it is “devastating” and describes, “We can't pay our employees or our bills. How will people live? We had no part...sent no money.... Our bank does not know when it will be up and running again”. So much for localized, targeted action.
Meanwhile, security and military experts actually say that there are no suspicious activities or credible threats identified with any of the protest-related financial transactions, and the only rationale the government has shown are assertions from the CBC. That is truly shocking.
The Emergencies Act is already violating rights to mobility, association and assembly. Big fences are already keeping Canadians away from here, a building that is theirs, grounds that are theirs. It is the people's place, the very place of all where they ought to be able to express their views on government policies and law. Gatherings around legislative buildings and national monuments, public assembly near critical infrastructure, official residences, government buildings and war monuments, other than lawful advocacy protests or dissent, much of which has now been criminalized retroactively, are banned.
Canadians cheering all of this on must really consider how they would view these measures if the cause was one they liked and if the government was one they did not. If their perspective changes, the unjust moral implications are blindingly clear.
Much has been said of the Conservatives and law and order. Let me explain my view. I believe in the rule of law and in freedom, so I am for individual rights, limited government, personal responsibility and social co-operation. I am against squashing dissent; authoritarian policies; tyranny, even if it is popular; and using police to achieve these ends.
The CCLA stated, “Protest is how people in a democracy express and share their political messages.... Many protests are disruptive. It is possible for a gathering to be both disruptive and also peaceful and nonviolent. Disruptive protest while often unlawful...can be the most effective way of raising awareness.”
Through history, countless wrongs have been lawful and justified by governments and citizens. Basic rights and freedoms have been illegal. The side in favour of the invasive, unforgiving, unyielding power of the state and against the sovereignty and freedom of individuals over themselves and their lives that is never right.
One day we will be judged for this and the Conservatives will be on the right side. I hope every MP will be as well.
1532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:05:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in one word, wow. I think the member should be recruiting Max Bernier to run for the Conservative Party. We are seeing the extreme right. Talk about a speech. Would members say she supports the rule of law?
Listen to the comments that she put on the record. It is almost as if she is patting the truckers on the back saying the blockade was a wonderful thing and that we should be encouraging these things to take place. Does the member and her Conservative colleagues not realize the damage and hurt that was caused to the people who lost their jobs? She wants to see children put up as barriers. It is incredible.
Does she support the People's Party? I cannot believe the comments that are coming from the Conservative members. My question is this: Seriously, does she support the rule of law?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:06:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is precisely an example of the name-calling, of the extremist and inflammatory frothing at the mouth, of words being put into a person's mouth, of painting with one big broad brush and twisting the points a person has made, that has driven hundreds of thousands of Canadians to feel ignored, abandoned, insulted and attacked by elected representatives, by the Prime Minister and by the government. Frankly, the member should be ashamed of himself.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:06:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not always agree with members of the Liberal Party, but I am quite shocked with some of the comments we heard in the member's speech. It brought something to mind, and I looked it up. I read an article by Andrew Coyne yesterday in The Globe and Mail, in which he said, “Conservatives have of late devolved into political magpies, snatching up whatever shiny object crosses their path, no matter how incoherent, indefensible or unconservative, just so long as it enrages liberals.”
There were threats of insurrection against our government and violence in the streets of our capital city that have made it unsafe for my employees to come to work. If that is not an emergency, what is? Is this not just another shiny thing for the Conservative Party to be picking at?
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:07:41 p.m.
- Watch
No, Madam Speaker. This is about a fundamental principle of the ability of citizens to express themselves and not have the government take extreme and unprecedented action, which is invasive in all parts of their lives, for which tools already exist. That is what we are debating here today with the Emergencies Act.
When it comes to threatening people's lives, assaulting or criminal activities, of course, I am sure that colleagues, if they are dealing with me in good faith in this House, know that I would be among the first to say we should throw the book at them, charge them, take them to jail and increase penalties. What we are debating is a government doing something that has never been done before, where the consequences are wide-ranging and severe on issues that provinces and law enforcement have shown repeatedly they can take care of and manage themselves.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:08:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, can my colleague from Lakeland, who seems to be so appalled by the Emergencies Act measures, explain to Canadians if the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act of Premier Kenney, which suppresses almost any demonstration with the highest penalties in Canada, appalls her as much?
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:09:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here on behalf of the people of Lakeland whose bank accounts have already been frozen, who are worried about the impacts on their ability to attend public events with their children, who are not sure if they are going to be targeted, shut down and pursued by a government with which they simply ideologically and politically disagree. What I am opposed to in the House of Commons is the Prime Minister's unprecedented, unnecessary and draconian invocation of the Emergencies Act, and that is what I will vote against.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:10:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was a young teenager when the War Measures Act in 1970 gripped the country for many days. I know I do not look that old, but I remember that, back in 1970. I remember watching the event on television, fearful for my country. Fifty-two years later, under a new act, 37 million Canadians in this country are more divided than ever. Our country is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.
In 1988—
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:10:49 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt.
Can I ask hon. members to avoid making noise while their colleagues are speaking?
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:11:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in 1988 under the Conservatives, Parliament debated for months the new Emergencies Act, and up until this week it was never used. The question on everyone's mind in the House is whether the current government should have invoked the Emergencies Act. We have asked the government for weeks what it was doing to defuse the convoy. Many MPs from the opposition side had dialogue with the protesters. In fact, I was one of them. I listened to a number of Saskatchewan drivers who made their way to the nation's capital. That is our job as members of Parliament, to listen to other views that, at times, we may not agree with. That is the tough part of this job, but we have to listen.
I found it surprising today that a number of parliamentary secretaries from the government side actually admitted that they, too, were on the street talking with their constituents. That is a shock, because the government never admitted that until today. While it is true that there were many different views being represented in this city, it is entirely unfair to categorize all protesters as fringe extremists. This was the Prime Minister's first reaction in the House. He has a pattern of saying divisive and derogatory things when he is faced with major issues that he is not equipped to handle.
We saw a prime example of this just last week when the Prime Minister hurled a very disgraceful insult at my friend and our colleague, the member for Thornhill, a granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, accusing her of supporting a profoundly immoral ideology, the same evil ideology that claimed millions of innocent Jews during the Holocaust. He still today has not apologized. That is shameful for the leader of this country.
With regard to the current debate surrounding the Emergencies Act, I do not believe the Prime Minister has met the key thresholds outlined to invoke this act, but we have seen in the last 23 days or so that it lies at the feet of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The government has totally mismanaged this situation. It could have ended, like the blockades at Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, without the need for the Emergencies Act. All four or five of those incidents I just spoke about actually did not need the Emergencies Act. A protest happened, and it was quietly done away with.
Why did the Prime Minister then go from zero to 100% without any action or even any dialogue? The key to conflict resolution is to work with people. We all know that. We try desperately on each side to work with people, but using derogatory and divisive language only fans the flames of disagreement, which we certainly saw in the last 23 days. We are all aware that there were some people protesting here in this city with abhorrent, racist views, and I will be crystal clear that I condemn this behaviour and all those views without any reservation.
Let us make no mistake. The events of the last month and the government's mishandling of them will go down in history as one of the darkest times in this country.
Lots has been said in the House about the foreign money coming into this country with the convoy. GoFundMe froze the funds and returned some to the donors, and then GiveSendGo's website was mysteriously hacked, revealing the names and email addresses of those who contributed to the protests. I can tell members that many Canadians, 48%, donated to this cause. We know Canadians coast to coast to coast have donated $5, $10, $20, $50 or more. In fact, in my province of Saskatchewan, over 1,300 people contributed to the convoy. Of those donations out of my province, 72% were under $100, so we are talking about $10, $20, $50 and so on.
I have talked with people who donated and who are now very worried that their bank accounts will be frozen. This is just a terrifying situation for many innocent people who have made modest donations to a cause they supported. The potential for this to severely damage their personal and even business finances is extremely distressing, and it should be for all Canadians. Canadians should not have to worry that their finances are in danger of ruin by the government because they supported this protest. Yes, I do understand that there are extreme cases where this becomes a factor, but in this situation, the government is being heavy-handed, punitive and trying to control by fear.
I have received dozens of emails on this matter. I am just going to give three examples, because I have received a big pile over the last three days. On Thursday, I received an email from a woman in my riding saying she donated to the convoy. She is now scared that her bank account will be frozen. The next day she went down to the bank and withdrew a sizable amount of money. Members should think about that. The next day, Friday morning, she is down at the bank saying she wants to withdraw most of her money.
A senior in my riding is most disturbed that the government is targeting individual bank accounts. There is another email saying that freezing Canadians' personal or business bank accounts without court order or consequence is totally unacceptable and should have Canadians very worried. I know I am. We all should be very concerned about this.
Another troubling aspect of invoking this act is that there are already tools at the disposal of law enforcement to deal with this unlawful protest. The Liberal justice minister claimed it was necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act in order to compel tow truck operators to remove illegally parked vehicles. However, paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code does give police the option to require anyone, “without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace.”
I and my Conservative colleagues oppose invoking the Emergencies Act. This is a clear case of government overreach. The act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that cannot be addressed through existing laws. The government has failed to explain why, precisely, this act needed to be invoked at this time. In fact, the following organizations have come out publicly against this Liberal overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to the opposition of seven provincial governments. As we know, governments in the different provinces all have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests.
This is a totally dangerous precedent that cannot be easily undone. The Conservative Party has spoken again and again in favour of dialogue and discussion. However, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused. He has chosen instead to divide and insult Canadians. Canadians agree that law and order must be maintained, but the Emergencies Act, the successor of the War Measures Act, is not the way to do it.
I cannot, in good conscience, support giving unlimited and unchecked power to a Liberal Prime Minister who has repeatedly demonstrated lack of good judgment here in the House of Commons. My constituents have spoken loud and clear. They demand better leadership than we currently have in this country.
1252 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:20:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my friend opposite, and we have worked well together over the years.
I do want to give him some startling numbers. I know he cited some numbers. With respect to the fundraising, some 52% of the funds came from the U.S. and 1,100 of those names relate to the same donors who donated to the January 6 insurrection at Capitol Hill last year. Does it not worry him, the level of hatred that we have seen? It is not an isolated one or two or three people. These are a number of different people with a number of different symbols as well as expressions of hate.
Without others denouncing them, particularly the leadership denouncing this hatred, does it not worry him that we are going in the wrong direction and the support of these blockades really sends the wrong signal in terms of law enforcement and in terms of having a safe country for all?
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:21:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the government gets around looking at bank accounts. I remember in 2015, Leadnow cost Joan Crockatt her MP seat in the city of Calgary. Thousands of dollars from Leadnow, from outside this country, went into the Calgary riding and cost Joan Crockatt her seat. Four years later, we won it back.
What about the Tides Foundation in this country? Can we look at those books? It has done irreparable damage in western Canada, with all of the money coming in from the United States and from throughout the world.
Those are two great examples to refute what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice just mentioned about people in this country who are worried about this situation.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:22:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member cited a lot of people in his speech, but I wonder what he thinks about the comments from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and Senator Vern White, who said:
...what we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. Leaving aside the stated manifesto of the organizers to overthrow the government, these protests are weakening our economy and disrupting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
As we have seen, many citizens, particularly in downtown Ottawa, were not able to leave their homes. They felt unsafe, they were harassed and they were shouted at.
What are the member's comments to those law-abiding citizens? Does he think that his former colleague, former MP Peter MacKay, and Senator Vern White are wrong?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:23:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder about the great Tommy Douglas. What would he think about her party here today? Tommy Douglas supported the 1970 War Measures Act.
What about Svend Robinson, from the member's province of B.C.? He tweeted out that he cannot believe what the NDP stands for today. Why is that? Because it stands for nothing. We know that. It does not stand for Canadians.
What about Erin Weir, the former Saskatchewan MP? By the way, we have no more NDP MPs in our province, and have not for two elections in a row. Why is that? It is because citizens of Saskatchewan have seen through that party.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:24:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have seen something called a “war room” in the Alberta government and a very expensive report that looked into all of the foundation money that ever went into Alberta. It did not find any evidence of anything. It was all reported. It was never hidden. As for Leadnow, as far as I know, all of its donors are Canadian. We have already put the rumours to bed.
If the member wants to find foreign-funded, large influence on energy policy in Alberta, he need look no further than the board of directors of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, where 80% of them are controlled by foreign interests.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:25:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will say this, because I have watched quite a bit of the debate for the last two days. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has not made up her mind on this. I believe her. We are looking forward to seeing where her vote goes tomorrow night.
In western Canada, they are looking at every NDP and Green MP to see which way they vote tomorrow night, and they will not forget.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my most sincere and heartfelt thanks to all municipal and provincial police forces, to the officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service, and to RCMP officers.
I am thinking in particular of the Sûreté du Québec officers who were deployed to resolve the impasse, although we cannot yet say it is over. They acted in exemplary fashion at a time when the eyes of the whole world were riveted on Canada—for the wrong reasons, unfortunately.
I thank all these people for their dedication.
I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît.
Speaking of looks, since I just mentioned how all eyes were on Canada, I have always admired the work of editorial cartoonists. The art of editorial cartoons has been part of political discourse since the invention of the printing press in the western world in the late 18th century and early 19th century. It is a counterpoint. An editorial cartoon sums up a political situation with a single, strikingly clear image; the picture tells the whole story. Such a cartoon captures the very essence of a person or event in a humorous way, although that humour can often be biting or cynical. Editorial cartoons are not necessarily designed to convey truth or fact in a single glance, but rather to give the reader pause. Editorial cartoons are meant to inspire necessary and meaningful reflection.
A shining example of the mastery of this informative visual art was published yesterday, around the same time, in the Journal de Montréal by cartoonist Ygreck. Of course, I cannot show members this cartoon without breaking the rules of the House, but I will describe it for them instead. Everyone will just have to use their imaginations. Describing something is just a different way of showing it. At the end of my speech, members will see that the things I have said that gave them pause are actually strong arguments as to why I am voting against the order.
First of all, I would like to set the stage for the cartoon and talk about where it takes place.
First, we have the Prime Minister's office, which has a desk and a chair. The chair is moved to the right to free up space underneath the desk. The desk has a few things on it.
On the left, there is a picture frame and a landline telephone. In the frame, there is a photo of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, thePrime Minister's father, who is covering his eyes with his right hand, a gesture of dismay everyone can recognize. It is commonly known as “facepalming”.
On the other side of the desk, there is a pink teddy bear—some may see a resemblance with a Care Bear. Behind the teddy bear, there is something that looks like a mug in the shape of a unicorn head.
The Emergencies Act is front and centre on the desk and appears to be freshly signed by the Prime Minister, since there is a pen lying across it.
When I said that the desk chair was placed to the right, it was to make room below the desk for the Prime Minister, who is hiding there and dressed like Waldo, from the acclaimed “Where's Waldo” puzzle books. I will remind members that the purpose of the game is to find Waldo, who is camouflaged by his surroundings. The Prime Minister is crouching and looks worried, looking out at the readers and asking them, “Is it over?” with his fingers crossed. The Prime Minister is wondering about the state of the country he is supposed to be governing: “Is it over?”
Let us focus on certain details concerning the two focal points of the scene I described earlier, the setting and the character. Members will recall that the Emergencies Act looms large on the desk. I remind them that on the left, there is a photo of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose hand seems to be disavowing what his son has done. Although the reasons why Trudeau Sr. invoked such a law are his own and do not interest me anyway—we are talking about a depiction—it goes without saying that the cartoon clearly and colourfully conveys that it is a mistake. In my view, it points out that it is a mistake to use, for the first time in the history of Canada, a legislative measure passed in 1988 that is a modernized version of the War Measures Act, an act that has a significant, and I daresay even traumatic, place in the collective psyche of the Quebec nation.
Not only has this new version of the act never even been used by any government, but also, using it now is way out of proportion to the situation. As everyone knows, the blockades in Windsor, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Emerson, Coutts and Vancouver were dealt with before the order was released on February 14. Only Ottawa, specifically the seat of government, not the whole city of Ottawa, was occupied until today. Now the occupation is over.
What this means is that an instrument of last resort was ordered to resolve problems that absolutely did not create a need for the Emergencies Act in the first place, because the necessary tools were already available. Moreover, the issues had already been addressed everywhere but in Canada's capital.
In addition, six Canadian provinces plus Quebec, whose National Assembly unanimously passed a motion, categorically refused to allow the application of the Emergencies Act on their territory.
That was the backdrop against which the government issued its February 14 order to invoke a completely unnecessary and disproportionate measure to address a situation that was no longer even a situation. The whole thing is utterly absurd. To paraphrase my colleague from Joliette, this is like me using a nuclear weapon to destroy a mosquito that did not even land on my arm.
Let us turn our attention to the objects sitting to the right of the War Measures Act on the Prime Minister's desk in the cartoon, specifically the pink stuffed animal and the mug in the shape of a unicorn's head. Of course, Ygreck's cartoons about the Prime Minister are often peppered with objects that are reminiscent of childhood and an imaginary world, and that evoke a certain naïveté. In this case, they are used pejoratively, perhaps intended as harsh criticisms of the Prime Minister, as they emphasize what could be described as his magical thinking: believing that his abstract wishes are all it takes to solve concrete problems, without him ever having to do anything. The pink teddy bear and the mythical horned animal, representing the power of love and purity, respectively, reflect the Prime Minister's tendency to refuse to take reality into account, to flee from it, thereby shirking his responsibilities.
The Prime Minister's undeniable tendency to shirk responsibility is conveyed by his clothing, as he is dressed like the “Where's Waldo" character, as I mentioned earlier. This is someone who hides in the crowd at all times and is hard to find. He looks like Waldo cowering under his desk, using it like a toy bunker, with his fingers crossed for good luck. The Prime Minister's chair is symbolically empty. Basically, the Prime Minister is nowhere to be found.
Indeed, where was the Prime Minister before news of the crisis first broke? When it was first reported that the convoy was about to leave, once the convoy did set off, once it arrived in Ottawa and first settled in and once it became entrenched, the Prime Minister should have been there for Canadians, as he has been happy to repeat ad nauseam for the past few weeks. Yes, he should have been there, even with all his smugness, his arrogance and his contempt. Yes, he should have been there, even in what I would call his selective absence, that fascinating ability that some people have to decide when they will make an appearance without ever being really, fully present.
Rainbows or unicorns, I do not believe for one minute that the Prime Minister is that naive. I see a clear lack of leadership, since the most important quality of a leader is the ability to communicate. To communicate like a leader fundamentally means needing to persuade, if not convince, people. To be a leader means not only truly being there, but also being there to take action. A leader has to be an agent.
I will conclude with the question asked by the Prime Minister in this cartoon, which captures the essence of what we are seized with today in the House. Legend has it that the fires that have been burning from Quebec City to Vancouver have been put out these past few days by the magical power of the rhetoric surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was proportionately inflated by the cosmic emptiness of the Prime Minister and his lack of leadership. Yes, a big balloon, an inflated measure might grab attention, but it is full of air and eventually deflates.
To answer the question of the prime minister character who asks whether it is over, I would say—
1580 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
