44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- 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
- Feb/20/22 5:35:52 p.m.
- Watch
The member's time is up.
We will now move on to questions and comments.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:36:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am certainly not one to wade into how the politics in Quebec work, but I am pretty sure that there is not a single member in this House who ever thought the Bloc Québécois would vote in favour of this, just given its position, generally speaking, when it comes to national legislation like this.
Having said that, this member's attempt to conflate the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, just like the Conservatives have done, is disingenuous at best and an attempt to completely misinform the Canadian public at worst. This member should know full well that the War Measures Act actually removed civil liberties that were afforded to Canadians. This piece of legislation specifically states in it that the Charter of Rights must be upheld, which is the defining feature between this and the War Measures Act. How can this member continue to perpetuate this misinformation?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:37:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would say that in reply to the Prime Minister's question asking whether the crisis was over, I would answer that it is over, and it was over well before he took action. I would answer that, three weeks after the start of this protest, he can now come out of hiding and take the true measure of what he thought was an emergency. He could have seen from the very beginning that there was no national crisis.
What is a real emergency and a national crisis is that this government needs a leader.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:37:36 p.m.
- Watch
That does not answer the question.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:37:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech.
We both agree that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government let the situation fester. The Prime Minister was missing in action, and therefore this crisis was not resolved as quickly as it should have been.
Will my colleague not admit that in the face of a convoy organized by the far right and radicals who said outright that they wanted to overthrow the elected government and who terrorized, harassed and intimidated the people of downtown Ottawa, there is a crisis situation?
Does she not agree that invoking the act made it possible to establish a perimeter preventing people from entering the downtown, declare that their unjustified presence was illegal, and increase fines and freeze bank accounts?
None of these measures could have been taken without invoking the Emergencies Act, as the acting police chief of Ottawa stated.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:38:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I absolutely denounce the presence of far-right groups, no matter where they are.
I have to say that this is not new. When I was 14 years old, I was a part of anti-racist and anti-fascist groups. Far-right groups were around back in 1990.
It is now 2022 and there are laws that enable us to combat these groups. This is nothing new. What is happening right now is the result of the Prime Minister's laissez-faire approach. He has been hands-off from the beginning, letting the whole situation escalate before calling in the heavy artillery, even though he did nothing from the outset.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:39:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have heard often from members opposite that they could not do some of the things they needed without invoking the Emergencies Act. However, section 129 of the Criminal Code allows the Minister of Justice to impose on and get people, tow trucks, to work with police. The Interprovincial Policing Act in Ontario enables a police chief to deputize any person simply to do this.
Can the hon. member tell me if she has heard any arguments from the government during this important debate that justify or demonstrate that the government pursued any of these legal tools before invoking this act?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:40:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this government has clearly not managed to justify anything. If the order does get adopted, there will need to be a report. This government will have to justify its decision.
The Prime Minister has treated Ottawa like any other city, when it is a national capital. He let it all escalate.
The Prime Minister has been selectively absent and has demonstrated a lack of leadership.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:40:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish to join my colleague from Manicouagan in thanking the police. I also want to take a moment today to thank the interpreters who have been providing service to us from 7 a.m. until late into the night since Thursday morning and will continue to do so until tomorrow, Monday. I want to recognize them and sincerely thank them.
I am the 22nd Bloc Québécois member to speak about the ratification of the Emergencies Act. I listened carefully to the debate. This is a moment that will go down in history. It is the first time that parliamentarians have been called upon to approve the use of the Emergencies Act. So far, my Bloc Québécois colleagues have shown that law enforcement had all the tools it needed to take strong action sooner in order to put an end to the occupation in Ottawa.
I hope that all members of the House are aware of the incitement to hatred, hate propaganda and defamation that we have seen from some convoy leaders. Such actions are unacceptable and already prohibited under the Criminal Code. Everyone in this House knows that it is already illegal to occupy a city; intimidate residents and local merchants; and push, intimidate and spit on reporters. Those things are already prohibited and illegal under the Criminal Code. We are already able to investigate the inflow of foreign money in order to destabilize the political order.
I am proud of my colleagues and their nuanced thinking. They reminded us that we all agree that the situation in Ottawa became illegal and untenable a long time ago, that we never should have gotten to this point, and that we have been witnessing a clear and serious lack of leadership, as my colleague from Manicouagan so aptly stated. We agree that something had to be done about the occupation in Ottawa. However, what we have been debating for the past few days and will continue debating tomorrow is the ratification of the Emergencies Act, and that is where opinions differ.
Essentially, do we agree to this special act being applied as ordered by the Liberal government across Canada as a whole? Were the extraordinary powers of the Emergencies Act really absolutely necessary to resolve the impasse in Ottawa?
The Bloc Québécois has argued that it was dangerous to downplay invoking this act across Canada, without considering that the emergency was different in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. We have shown that, in our opinion, the government did not prove beyond a doubt that all criteria were met to invoke emergency measures. We established that this improvised use of the act created a precedent that could be dangerous.
Today, I would like parliamentarians to realize that the Bloc Québécois's position is rooted in the unanimous voice of the National Assembly. Quebec's elected officials, including its ministers, all rejected the invocation of the Emergencies Act by unanimously passing a motion in the National Assembly. On February 15, Quebec spoke with one voice.
I will repeat that all elected Quebeckers, one by one, opposed the invocation of the Emergencies Act in Quebec. That is fundamentally how one can interpret the position of the Bloc Québécois, because it is in a way the underlying reason for our opposition to confirming the Emergencies Act, which applies to Quebec.
As François Paradis, the Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, can attest, this unanimous support comes from the five different political parties and all independent members. I think that means something. The message could not be any clearer.
I am proud of my caucus, which, throughout this debate, has given a loud and clear voice to the legitimate wishes of the Quebec National Assembly. I hope my speech will make the members of this House grasp the significance of a unanimous vote in a national assembly and in the legislatures of other provinces.
I am proud of my caucus, which has shown some nuanced thinking in a context that leaves little room for nuance, something that has been missing in these debates and in this pandemic. I call on everyone here to be very careful about making generalizations.
This motion is about ratifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act, not about the cause the protesters were defending. There is a bit of mixed messaging in some of the speeches we have heard from our colleagues in the opposition parties.
We have spoken rationally, but also from the heart. I am really proud of our contribution to the debate, which made members think. In response to our questions, we have learned that even certain members on the government benches do not seem 100% convinced of the need to invoke this last-resort act. When agreeing to invoke special legislation, it seems to me we must be convinced of the necessity to do so, of the fact that using the law is essential.
Personally, I am confident in my vote and I know that on Monday night, I will vote no to this extraordinary legislation. On Monday, in addition to all the political and legal arguments that my colleagues have presented, the Bloc Québécois will vote in line with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. That, it seems to me, is entirely consistent with the fundamental essence of our political commitment.
With respect to the unanimous will of the National Assembly, I will add that I would have also liked to see that unanimity in the House. I would have liked to see parliamentarians from all parties discuss the proclamation on emergency measures before, not after the fact. I would have liked to see a more elevated and serious discussion.
Unfortunately, we saw partisanship and insinuations of support for the far right and even racism. We have heard it. This seems to be bigger than we are. We have seen it: the petty politics, the insults, and the bad faith are far too commonplace in the House of Commons, even during an historic debate.
We have the opportunity to rise above. We have a duty to rise above. I invite my esteemed colleagues to ask themselves whether they are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the only way, whether they are comfortable incorporating the Emergencies Act into the modus operandi of government crisis management and whether they truly believe that our democracy will be stronger for it.
I invite them to think about it because our debate is not about what happened in the streets of Ottawa. From the beginning, this debate has essentially been about our democracy.
1126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:49:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate being here in the House debating the very important piece of legislation before us.
I want to thank the member who just spoke. I work with her closely in our joint roles as whips, and I really appreciated the very sensitive approach she took in her speech. I also want to say that these are amazing times. I believe we should not be here, yet here we are. I also want to say that today when I was walking to come to work I saw something that really bothered me. I saw a small business owner chasing two men out of his store with a stick, yelling at them. He could not get hold of the police.
I am just wondering if the member could talk about the impacts this kind of recklessness is having in this county, when we see this extremism, when we see a blockade for three weeks, when we see people feeling so afraid and we also see the impacts of that activity, which means our social structures start to come undone. If we cannot stand up in this House and talk about how we are going to deal with that, then I do not think we are doing our jobs very well. I would love to hear her thoughtful response, just as thoughtful as her speech was.
226 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:51:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my whip colleague for the question.
This allows me to clarify that the people who were part of the convoy or the hundreds of people who occupied the streets did not all have the same message. They were not a monolithic group, but we seem to have forgotten that when we focused our attention on one group over another.
Like my colleague, I have seen testimonials and I have spoken to people who were in tears because they wanted to withdraw from the convoy but were stuck. We have seen and heard all sorts of things.
The important thing today is that the streets are empty. The occupation is over. We no longer need this legislation. It is no longer useful, vital or necessary to manage the crisis that is coming to a close.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:52:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not entirely disagree with the comments from my colleague in the Bloc when she said a lot of people were caught up in this whose intentions were different from those who were on the path of the lawless behaviour that we have seen. However, I would say that the vast majority of those who were here in the week leading up to the police action that we saw in the last three days had by that point dug in their heels and were saying that they would not leave.
More importantly, we have heard a lot about how the powers were there and the provinces had the powers to do this or that. Yes, the provinces had the power to bring in other police forces, but they did not. The provinces did not do anything.
Is this member saying that it just happens to be a coincidence?
I would like to ask my question without being heckled.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:53:11 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
Can we listen to the question until the end?
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:53:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is this member suggesting that it just happened to be a coincidence that the Emergencies Act came in on Monday and then we started to see real action on Thursday? Is that just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the emergency measures?
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:53:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, frankly, I am flabbergasted by my colleague's question.
From what I understand, he is saying that the provinces did not do a damn thing and stood by while the situation got worse, and that the good old federal government had to come in to whip the troops into line and invoke special legislation to get them to do their jobs—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:54:07 p.m.
- Watch
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:54:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I think the member for Kingston and the Islands is running out of arguments. He has been here arguing for a long time. He is tired and is now taking things too far.
All of the police forces came together, teamed up, joined forces and worked together. They are the ones who managed to push the protesters back, with support and coordination from their command centre. It was not special legislation or an order that came in to save the day.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:54:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
It is a sad day to be speaking here on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. When I first ran for office two and a half years ago, I never thought I would spend most of my time representing my constituents during a time of COVID-19. When I ran for re-election just six months ago, I never imagined that I would be representing them during a debate about martial law being imposed upon them. From day one of that campaign, when the Prime Minister deliberately set out to wedge, divide and stigmatize our population, the wisest among us may have foreseen this power grab. Unfortunately, I was naive enough to think that even this Prime Minister still had a modicum of love and respect for his fellow Canadians and for democracy. The truth is that his love is for power and his respect is for dictatorships.
What is the Emergencies Act? I want to be absolutely clear. This is a naked power grab by the Prime Minister, and I will not be supporting it. This act allows the government, under certain strict criteria, to override all established laws, regulations and norms of Canadian democracy. It is, simply put, the imposition of martial law. The New York Times reported these measures for what they are: a “temporary suspension of civil liberties”.
This legislation is a successor to the War Measures Act and has never been used in Canadian history. Its predecessor was used during times of world wars to help Canada mobilize and by the first Trudeau to go after real terrorists in Quebec during the FLQ crisis in 1970. Today his son, our current Prime Minister, is using emergency powers to clear vehicles on Ottawa streets.
To be clear, I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party have called for an end to these blockades, but the vehicles at the U.S. border crossings were already gone before this Emergencies Act was even initiated. The Liberals said they needed this power to compel Ottawa tow truck operators. They did not. Existing laws already gave that power. In fact, nearly everything they are doing could have been done under the provincial emergency order.
The extraordinary powers of the federal Emergencies Act have never been invoked, not even when the twin towers were toppled on 9/11, when we went to war in Afghanistan or when an actual terrorist stormed Parliament here in 2014 and tried to assassinate the prime minister at that time. The fact is that the Prime Minister mishandled this situation right from the beginning. Every parent teaches their children to use their words, not their fists. Instead, our incompetent Prime Minister chose division over leadership, chose name-calling over dialogue.
As an aviation enthusiast, I am fascinated by airplane crashes. The root cause of a plane crash can always be traced back to someone not even on the plane. The reason for the crash is never the most obvious one. One must ask why. Why did the engine quit? Why was there no fuel? Why was the fuel gauge incorrect, etc., etc., until one gets to the root cause. If we apply that strategy here, what is the root cause of the unrest we see today? Is it the protesters themselves? Certainly they will be the ones held accountable for their actions, but why were they here? One root cause was the mandate for truckers to be vaccinated. Who forced that? It was the Prime Minister.
Another root cause is frustration and weariness with COVID restrictions in general. When the provinces began to relax restrictions, the federal government was intent on keeping them in place. Who forced that? Again it was the Prime Minister. In fact, time and time again, the root cause of this conflict can be traced right to the feet of the Prime Minister. His own MPs have said that the Prime Minister has politicized the pandemic, using division and fear to pit Canadian against Canadian. We have neighbours snitching on their neighbours, fully encouraged by the government.
The Prime Minister desires division and depends on it to retain his political power. Conservatives want to lead with dialogue and mutual respect. We know that a root cause of this conflict is the lack of a plan to move us past the COVID restrictions of the last two years, so last Monday there was a vote in the House of Commons on our Conservative motion to make a plan to end COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. The Liberals and their lackeys in the NDP voted it down.
In this situation it is the cheerleading of the NDP that is perhaps the most telling of all. The NDP, going back to its CCF roots in Saskatchewan, pretends to be the hero of the little guy, the working class. These last few weeks have finally discredited that myth. We know that many of the current NDP are self-proclaimed socialists. Just like our PM admires Communist China’s basic dictatorship, today’s NDP looks back in time at Lenin and Stalin and yearn for a return to those days.
The whole philosophy of socialism as written by Marx was to put down dissent and seize power through violence. I read with great interest the tweet of former NDP member of Parliament Svend Robinson. He was referring to the 1970 vote, when the first Trudeau invoked these emergency powers. Svend said, “The NDP Caucus in 1970 under Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stand against the War Measures Act. Today's @NDP under [its leader] betrays that legacy and supports Liberals on the Emergencies Act. Shame. A very dangerous precedent is being set.”
Traditionally, the NDP has stood on the side of civil liberties and prevented governments from being granted sweeping powers; today’s NDP, well, not so much. This will not come as a surprise to current NDP leadership, but it should be a wake-up call to all Canadians who support the NDP. The NDP is not the friend of democracy.
I want to get to the heart of the matter. A leader skilled in dividing and stigmatizing is also skilled at distracting. Like a clever magician, our Prime Minister is having us look at downtown Ottawa while he works behind the scenes to carry out his true goal. What is that? As they say, follow the money.
The finance minister let slip this week that the government's real desire is to make some of the emergency measures permanently available to the government. Which measures was she referring to? She was referring to financial tools.
Let us take a step back. All dictators want control. In our modern society, control is exercised through money. One cannot do anything without money. Even exercising constitutional freedoms requires money. For example, freedom of speech might require a website, a pamphlet, an advertisement, etc., all of which require money. If someone takes away our money, they take away our freedoms.
My parents grew up with cash. A person could accumulate a pillowcase full of cash, put all that cash into a briefcase and buy a neighbour’s house by handing that briefcase over to him. In most of human history, that is how transactions were done, using shells, gold, cattle, etc. Today, if someone shows up with a briefcase full of money, that person will likely be arrested. Governments, through their central banks, want cash to be eliminated so that they can control our money and therefore control us. This plan was going very well until GoFundMe and cryptocurrencies showed up. These new payment methods have thrown a big monkey wrench into the wheels of government control—that is, until now.
What did the finance minister let slip this week? She let slip that the government would take the overreaching powers of the Emergencies Act regarding financial controls and make them permanent, particularly as they relate to crowdsourcing and cryptocurrencies. In other words, in a moment when Canadians are allowing the government to have absolute power, the government is using that opportunity to slip in some permanent changes
I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am just making an observation and hoping people pick up on this discussion and really pay attention.
These emergency powers are significant. What are the people of Saskatoon West saying about this? Cora in my riding said, “This language of hate and divide needs to stop. Love and kindness is the only way forward. ... I can’t help but wonder if we continue on this path how long it will take for myself to be on the receiving side of hate from our government because of policies that go against my well intended morals and values. It’s only a matter of time...and I’m scared.”
I am scared too.
Matthew said, “As a constituent of your riding, I just wanted to voice my extreme concern that the Federal Government of Canada has implemented this measure over a peaceful protest. I know you're part of the opposition, and I have been glad to see some of the members of your party speak plainly to the Canadian people. I don't typically take the time to get involved in politics, but it's absolutely disgusting what's going on right now. I am embarrassed to be a Canadian at this point.”
We should all be embarrassed. A recent immigrant from Bangladesh told me plainly, “Things going on in Ottawa are very sad. [The Prime Minister] is becoming a dictator. Yes! People around the globe know Canada as a calm and peaceful nation. We love friendly, peaceful Canada, and that is why we moved to Canada. Please raise your united voice in the House against all kinds of violence.”
The Prime Minister is embarrassing Canada on a global scale, but all is not lost. My home province of Saskatchewan shone a beacon of hope last week for Canada. It ended the vaccine passport system on February 14, the very same day the Prime Minister took his drastic step federally. I have listened to my constituents, unlike the Prime Minister, who attempts to shut down opposing voices.
I have much more to say, but my time is up. In summary, the Prime Minister has created this situation. He has the power to make it worse and the power to make it better. I pray he chooses wisely.
1773 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:06:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he owns a business in the downtown Ottawa area. What would he think if, for three weeks, he could not open, he could not pay his rent and he had to tell his employees that they would lose their jobs?
In addition, what does he think about closing bridges that are a vital path for the commercial trade between us and the United States? What does he think about threats to our supply chain?
What does he think about the people receiving funds from outside Canada? What does he think about more than 70% of Canadians supporting the decision of the Prime Minister?
Is the member aware that the Prime Minister was patient? The protesters stayed for close to three weeks. The Prime Minister was giving them a chance. What—
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
