44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 11:15:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour anytime to rise on my feet in this House. It is unfortunate that we are rising today to debate the Emergencies Act. It is an act whose use is not merited right now. I will outline my reasoning for voting against this tonight and why I hope that the NDP will join with us, stay relevant and hopefully support our position that it is not needed right now.
To get understanding, we need to ask ourselves how and why: How are we here and why are we here debating this, and why did we have protesters on the streets of Ottawa? It goes to the function of parliamentarians, which is to listen. We may not agree with the protesters and we may not agree with all views in Canada, but we listen, hopefully to have a better understanding of our fellow Canadians. That is what has been unfortunately lacking in this place.
We have gone through two years of this pandemic with these difficulties. Everyone is tired. Everyone wants this to be over. The good news is that in Canada it is slowly becoming very apparent that the pandemic is coming to an end. Mandates are being lifted across Canada. Freedom is on the move again. We are able to take back our lives. The Super Bowl was just played in California, with 85,000 people in that stadium, and we did not see a spike of COVID cases afterward. Why is that? Part of it is that vaccines have helped.
We are one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world. We have therapeutic options now available. Also, the variant that is dominant right now is milder. In the past, this is how pandemics have ended, with the dominant strain becoming a mild virus that would go through our population and we would have natural immunity layered on top of all the other measures that I have outlined. That is why we are coming to the end of it. We are at the tail end of this. Province after province is lifting its restrictions. Countries, significant western world countries, are removing the mandates. We are so close to being in that spot.
Why would the Liberal government in January, last month, at the end of this pandemic, after claiming that truck drivers were frontline heroes, the people who literally fed us and delivered the goods that sustained us for these last two years, who called them heroes for the first two years, at the waning end of this pandemic, move them from heroes to zeros? At the stroke of a pen, the Prime Minister decided that at the tail end we are going to have this mandate imposed when they cross the border. That was a month ago. We are talking about a small portion of the Canadian population who, for the most part, are vaccinated and by themselves for 22 hours of the day, and the Liberals targeted those people. Worse than targeting them, they insulted them. They divided us.
As this convoy was getting started, the Prime Minister called out that the people in this freedom convoy were separatist, nothing more than people who want to tear our country apart. They got to Ottawa, and I have never seen as many Canadian flags in a group on Parliament Hill. These are not separatists; they are patriots. They were called sexist and racist. I would hope that the Liberal members who are here had the opportunity to meet with some of these fellow Canadians and hear their stories. They would hear and notice that they are from every nationality, that every corner of the world is represented by those truckers and the people who joined them. They were not racist. They were not sexist. They were not separatists.
We had the Prime Minister piling on, for what purpose? One would only surmise that it is for his political benefit, and that is wrong. A lot of wrong things happened in the last two years, but in the last two weeks or the last month there have been profound changes in the way I view our institution and the way Canadians view this place and their government, and it is not for the better.
We are in a different spot. The Queen, at 95 years old, caught COVID. With all the precautions that are out there, the bubble-wrapped Queen, at her age, caught COVID, and she is working through it. We are definitely in a new phase of this pandemic. We are coming to the end, so why pile on these mandates that only divide Canadians, not unify us?
The powers that the Emergencies Act gives the government are profoundly wrong, and we know this to be true. In a free society, we do not freeze bank accounts. That is the most horrendous thing that failed regimes around the world do. In their dying days, they print money, they remove civil liberties and they freeze bank accounts.
It is not that difficult to view what is going on in Canada through a lens of mistrust. We need leadership to bring healing once we are through this pandemic. When all the mandates are removed, and I believe we are weeks or less away from that, we are going to have huge divisions that need to be mended. Invoking the Emergencies Act only divides Canadians that much more at a time we should not be divided.
That is a little bit about why we are here, but how are we here? How was it that a protest would go on for as many days as it did? When the inquiry takes place, one of the questions and one of the things to analyze is what happened at the start. For weeks, or days at least, we would turn on the news and see the news of this convoy coming to Ottawa. People were lining the highways in the cold just to wave at the convoy.
Even if someone does not agree with convoy's message, they must take a step back and understand what it must take for people to give up all they had in their lives to get on the road and come to Ottawa to fight for what they believe in and to have their message heard by the government. The reports that they were coming to Ottawa were no secret.
When the convoy got here, they were directed or welcomed by the City of Ottawa's electronic signs that said “convoy turn here”, and they headed downtown. When they got to the downtown core of Ottawa, what were they told? “Go ahead, park on Wellington. You have to leave on Sunday, but you are free to come and break this law. You can set up shop and you can protest.”
In Canada, we have the right to protest. It is still a right. We need to provide a space for people to protest, to disagree with their government and to let their message be heard. I believe that when the inquiry looks at what the first mistakes were, they will turn out to be it was the Liberal Prime Minister's pressure that led the Liberal mayor of Ottawa to invite them down to set up shop on Wellington Street. That was the message they heard when they got to Ottawa.
People are now second-guessing themselves and saying we needed intelligence reports because we did not know what was coming. Turn on the news: The whole country knew where they were going and why they were going there. Their livelihoods were threatened. We were at the tail end of a pandemic, a pandemic in which they were treated like heroes for the first two years for delivering goods, crossing the border and putting their lives at risk.
In the dying days of this pandemic, as mandates were being lifted across Canada, what did our Prime Minister decide to do? He decided to divide Canadians, just like he did in the last election. Leading into that election, he said, “No, we do not need mandates.” He must have received some polling information that showed otherwise, and he decided to use this divisive weapon against his own people to divide Canadians for his political gain.
I will be voting against this motion because it is not right. It is not right to freeze people's bank accounts and it is not right to insult the hard-working Canadians who make up that convoy.
1429 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:25:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the premise of the member's argument from the beginning was about Liberals putting in the restrictions in regard to long-haul truck drivers crossing the border. I have a news flash for the member: Long-haul truck drivers cannot drive into the States. That is not because of Canada; it is because the United States of America will not let them in unless they are vaccinated.
The member's focus then was on Ottawa. Does he not recognize that the convoys and the blockades are still a threat at our international borders? Think for once of the real victims here, the people who are losing their jobs and the community members who are losing their ability to walk peacefully around their neighbourhoods. Does he not recognize those people?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:26:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will correct the member opposite. The restrictions on crossing the border were first introduced by Ottawa. A week later, America retaliated.
With regard to having these restrictions removed, one side has to move first, and it should be Canada. I suspect the U.S. might actually move first and force us to rescind the restrictions, because it makes no sense to have these restrictions on people who sit in their cab for 22 hours of the day by themselves. While they have been crossing the border all through the last two years, they were being called heroes, and now you call them racists and you call them separatists and you call them sexist people. This is wrong.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:27:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to remind the member opposite that he is to speak through the Chair. Throughout his speech he kept saying “you” while looking at the government bench.
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:27:26 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member has a point. Comments do need to come through the Chair.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:27:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the protest and the trucker convoy. That deteriorated. It was not necessarily just a trucker convoy anymore, with all of the flags being displayed in Ottawa. We definitely do not want the Emergencies Act to be used. We are wondering how far this act can go if invoked.
Given the enormity of what has happened in Ottawa and elsewhere, what does my colleague think? Is it excessive or not?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:28:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have had protests in Canada for over 150 years. Every protest that I have seen was able to be stopped with the current laws on the books. We had massive protests in major cities across Canada, protests in which buildings were being burnt, cars were being set on fire and people were getting killed. For three weeks, we had none of that on the streets of Ottawa. It was the lack of leadership from the Prime Minister that facilitated this protest getting to the place that it got to.
I am against blockades. I am against any illegal activity. Canadians still have the right to protest. They still have the right to have their message heard. These measures are not needed, because in the history of our country we have been able to put down all protests that we have had in the past up until now. Why is that? I believe it is because this act is being used for political reasons, not for law and order, which I am a big believer in.
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:29:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe we have a responsibility to reflect on how we have become so divided. Instead of peace, order and good government, we are witnessing chaos and disorder and poor government. Today our hon. member acknowledged the question of leadership.
My question is on behalf of the thousands of emails and phone calls I have received from people in my riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
Does the hon. member agree that we need to stop this abuse of power and focus on our strengths and opportunities as a country?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:30:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we need healing. We need a leader who will listen, a leader who will not divide us for his own benefit. We need to come together like never before because of what we have been through in the last two years. We talk about the traumatic scenes that some people witnessed in Ottawa. They could not go to work, could not see loved ones and could not get around. Well, that is what our country has been like for the last two years.
We need a leader who will bring freedom back to Canada and remember “God keep our land glorious and free”.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:30:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to take part in debate, although I must say I am saddened that it is under the current circumstances. Last week, I put down my words very carefully on what my contribution to this debate would be, but last week is not this week. Today is not yesterday. I would ask, why are we still here? Why has the Prime Minister not revoked this massive overreach by his Liberal government? The streets are now clear and the trucks are gone, and as we have yet to vote on all this, all done without parliamentary approval, let us recap for a moment how we came to be here.
Trucking was not broken in Canada. For the past two years, truckers have successfully delivered the goods, so to speak. Where was the problem here? Why did the Prime Minister intentionally pick this fight? Why did he decide to fix a trucking problem that was not broken? Truckers did their job faithfully for two years without a mandate. The vast majority of truckers are fully vaccinated. A small number of truckers who drive truck alone in their cab were never at any time shown to be a public health risk. The Liberal government has produced zero evidence to suggest there is a risk, and now here we are.
We all know that the Prime Minister has poured fuel on the fire. I will not quote the nasty names he has used because I believe them to be unparliamentary. He has told the truckers that they hold “unacceptable views”, that they do not deserve to be heard, that they must be condemned. The Prime Minister succeeded. He drove people to come from all parts of Canada to Ottawa to protest largely against him and the actions of his government, and to send a message to him that they wanted to be heard. I believe all of Ottawa and indeed Canada heard their message. Some agree with that message. Others do not. That is what occurs in a democracy. We know when the Prime Minister sees a protest that he agrees with, he joins it. Now we know that when he sees a protest he does not agree with, he will use the most powerful law he has to silence it, because that is exactly what happened when he invoked the Emergencies Act.
I come from British Columbia. It is a beautiful province, but one where we have seen far more than our fair share of protests. As anyone from British Columbia will tell us, when the RCMP decides to move in and clear protests, they do so with surgical-like efficiency. Close to 900 protesters have been cleared from the Fairy Creek protests and arrested. In November, the RCMP moved in on and cleared a protest blockade against the Pacific LNG gas line. A remote region in rural British Columbia with many indigenous protesters was cleared by the RCMP in a single day. These are not observations; these are facts. Make no mistake. All of these protests were cleared under existing Canadian laws.
Let me ask this place a question. Can any of us name any protest that has occurred in Canada since 2015 that has not ended under existing Canadian laws? I do not believe any of us can because none exist. I was first elected to this place in 2011, and, indeed, during the majority years of that government, I lost track of how many protests occurred. Every single one was resolved under existing Canadian laws. Why does that matter? It is because the standard used to invoke the Emergencies Act is absolutely crystal clear. The Emergencies Act cannot be invoked unless the emergency “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”, full stop. However, the Prime Minister tried nothing else to de-escalate the situation before invoking the Emergencies Act.
That leaves a very awkward question on the table: Why is it that every other protest in modern-day Canadian history was cleared under existing laws and authority, but this protest required special laws, the Emergencies Act?
We all know, for whatever reason, that the Ottawa police were either unwilling or unable to do what other police forces in Canada have done. Also, let us not say it is due to the trucks. What Windsor police did in clearing the Ambassador Bridge only the week prior was done under existing laws, and it also involved trucks. Whatever the answer is to that question, make no mistake that an Ottawa policing problem is not a national crisis. We all know this.
I remind the House that all of the measures within the Emergencies Act must be met before the act can be invoked. It is not some, nor one. All must be met. Some members may not like that the law sets the standard, and the government is free to amend the law and members can support that or not. However, as it stands, the law has not been amended. All standards must be met before it is invoked by a government.
Every protest in the past 20 years has been resolved under existing Canadian laws. It not 99% of them, but 100% of them. The Prime Minister knows this, as does his Minister of Public Safety. The Liberals therefore had to change tactics, using heated rhetoric and making serious claims, but without providing any data to back up those claims. This approach from the Prime Minister seems to be taken from the Adam Sutler character in the movie V for Vendetta: scare the people and use fear. That is what the Prime Minister is trying to do to justify what cannot be legally justified.
This past weekend we watched exactly what happened. There was no armed insurrection. There were no massive stockpiles of illegal weapons, explosives or incendiary devices found here in Ottawa. This protest was largely cleared in a single weekend much like every other protest is cleared in Canada: without using the Emergencies Act.
Why is this a different situation and why are we still here? Why is the Emergencies Act not being revoked? I am reminded that recently the member for Louis-Hébert gave a public statement. He knows the dangerous games the Prime Minister plays. This member had the courage to call out the Prime Minister's divisive tactics and politics of division.
Here is the problem with the politics of division. Politically, I suppose some would say that if we poll on an issue, pick a winning side and then demonize the losing side, we come away with more votes. The challenge with this approach is that when we create sides, we divide people and create winners and losers. That approach divides. It creates hate and animosity.
Indeed, we have heard the Prime Minister use nasty words against those who, with his policies, have been turned into losers. We heard the Prime Minister make a most ungraceful and undignified attack against a female MP from my party last week. Why would he do that? Is it really too much of an expectation that a leader of a G7 country cannot answer a question from a Jewish member of Parliament without suggesting she stands with people who wave swastikas? However, he refused to apologize. He refused three times. Even after a day of reflection, he still refused to apologize, but that is what this man has become since the election: bitter, angry, divisive and vindictive. I say vindictive because we are still here. The protests have been cleared. The only motive now to continue with the act would be to punish, to punish under the terms of the Emergencies Act, where there is no due process to protect the innocent from mistakes that may occur. Is this the Canada we want now, one that punishes people without fairness and without due process?
Let us also recognize that other countries are now openly mocking and belittling the actions of the Prime Minister. How will future Canadian governments condemn those nations for cracking down on their citizens when we are no better here? Canada used to be an example, a country known for its kindness to others, its compassion and its willingness to stand with others to fight against tyranny and oppression. Today, under the Prime Minister, we have become a nation increasingly divided whose citizens are fighting among themselves. There was a time in the past when the Prime Minister would apologize for his use of unparliamentary words in this place and would speak of sunny ways, but not anymore. We have gone from sunny ways to dark days.
What has become of the Prime Minister since the election? The comments directed by the Prime Minister to the member for Thornhill were abhorrent. We cannot allow division to continue. If members vote for this act knowing full well that not all the conditions have been met, and knowing the protests have been cleared and the trucks are gone, they are basically authorizing an overuse and abuse and setting a very dangerous precedent in this process. They will in fact lower the bar that needs to be set high. We must do our job as parliamentarians, which means we must follow the law. If we do not, we are failing Canadians.
1563 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:41:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will quote something from the Winnipeg Free Press that was printed just the other day. “Premier Heather Stefanson pleaded in a private letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—”
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:42:18 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member cannot use a member's name.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:42:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I definitely know better.
The article states:
Premier Heather Stefanson pleaded in a private letter to [the] Prime Minister...to intervene at the Emerson border blockade just days before she publicly opposed his decision to enact the federal Emergencies Act against protesters.
In a Feb. 11 letter obtained by the Free Press, Stefanson asked [the Prime Minister] to take “immediate and effective” action as she pleaded for “national leadership that only you and the federal government can provide.”
The Province of Alberta asked for Ottawa to help and to bring in some tow trucks. The Premier of Ontario supports this initiative. The interim Ottawa police chief supports it. It seems to me that it is the extreme Conservative right that is playing politics, and there is ample evidence of hypocrisy.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:42:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my speech I said very clearly that there are laws within Canada that allow for the coordination of police and for establishing order without invoking the Emergencies Act. It has never been used before. The member is just wrong. No one has said that any of the massive protests outside of this place could not have been dealt with using existing laws.
Now I will quote the Prime Minister:
...in order for you to trust your government, you need a government that will trust you. When we make a mistake—as all governments do—it is important that we acknowledge that mistake and learn from it. We know that you do not expect us to be perfect—but you expect us to work tirelessly, and to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.
What happened to that Prime Minister?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:43:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sick of hearing the Liberals tell us that this is an ordinary law that will simply provide a few extra tools if needed and that the provinces begged them to help and to show leadership. We, too, begged them to show some leadership for more than 20 days.
Showing leadership does not involve the use of an extreme piece of legislation like the Emergencies Act. It involves bringing people together, talking to them, trying to meet with them, coordinating law enforcement and taking action before 20 days have passed. What does my colleague think about that?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:43:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, leadership is everything. Stoking divisions and name-calling, as the Prime Minister has done, and I will not use his unparliamentary terms, have escalated the crisis much more. He could have chosen to work with the solicitor general of Ontario to find ways to support utilizing existing measures, not the Emergencies Act.
It is the equivalent of awakening the kraken, a legislative leviathan that should only be broken when in the most dire situations. I do not believe the government has met the test, and in fact, I believe it should rescind that invocation immediately. We are a nation of laws, but no one person should have such power. Parliamentarians need to do our part to uphold the rule of law. If the government has not met the high threshold test, we should vote against it.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:45:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, history has taught us that giving any government or politician too much power or too much money leads to a dictatorship style of governance. How much does this motion and this experience remind us of history?
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:45:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand that when people are pushed to the limit, they want to push back. We are supposed to channel the concerns of Canadians to this place, and as I said, if the government felt that the threshold was too high in the Emergencies Act, it could have moved to amend it, but it did not.
We here in this chamber now have a responsibility to look at whether the Prime Minister and his cabinet have met the threshold to utilize legislation that gives them enormous powers that have never been used. We should limit those powers and the government should revoke its use of the act. In the face of not doing that, we should vote against this motion to restore—
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:46:20 a.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:46:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, violence was their mode of operation; hate is what drove them; human life was called into question or altogether threatened; millions of dollars of damage was done to property, yet there was silence from the Prime Minister, and the media only spoke whispers several days later.
Meanwhile, 4,500 kilometres away on the other side of the country, a diverse group of Canadians gathered from all across. Some wore turbans and some wore toques. Some were in their seventies and some were not even able to walk yet. They gathered for one reason: to advocate for freedom. They gathered to advocate for what it is to be Canadian: true north, strong and free. These individuals were truckers, farmers, doctors, nurses, stay-at-home moms, students, teachers or social workers. I talked with them. I heard their story. I listened, because that is what a politician does who deeply cares about this country.
The Prime Minister took a bit of a different approach. He stigmatized. He antagonized. He turned a deaf ear. Some of these individuals drove big rigs; some of them drove Civics and some of them drove F-150s. Some of them were vaccinated three times and some of them were not vaccinated at all. However, they all were Canadians fighting for an ideal. Were they disruptive at times? Yes, indeed. That is the point of a peaceful assembly protesting something that people disagree with. It is allowed in this country, a democratic country. Were there a few bad actors? Sure there were, but they were quickly condemned and removed.
When we juxtapose this with the attack on the Coastal GasLink site at Houston, B.C., with damage to property and threat to human life, it becomes very clear that the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in response to Ottawa is a massive overreach and purely punitive in nature. We know this, especially given the fact that we watched the border crossings at Windsor, Coutts, Surrey and Emerson be cleared without the Emergencies Act needing to be invoked. We know it even more today, when we see that the downtown core of Ottawa has been cleared out.
However, the Prime Minister insists that he will still move forward with invoking the Emergencies Act. Why? Is it necessary? I argue it is not. Again, if the Windsor border, the Surrey border, the Coutts border and the Emerson border were able to be cleared up without this over-exaggeration of power, then Ottawa could have been too.
There is something more that needs to be discussed here and that is what that threshold is for invoking the act. The Emergencies Act has never been used since it was first created in 1988. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was used three times: once in World War I, once in World War II and once for the FLQ crisis, where again, human life was taken and the country was really thrown into chaos. The bar is high, so for the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act when an assembly of people comes to protest with views that are different from his, one has to wonder why; why the overreach?
The one power the Prime Minister gets from this is the ability to freeze bank accounts. He has the opportunity to seize control of the monetary flow for those individuals who hold views different from his own. This is an abuse of power. We are talking about individuals who may have donated $10 or maybe a few hundred dollars to this cause. Simply because they had views that were different from the Prime Minister's, their bank accounts are frozen and they are unable to make their car payments, their house payments or put food on the table. Some of them are unable to take care of their children. Others are unable just to meet the basic needs of life.
It is a massive breach on these individuals, and it is simply for no other reason than the fact that these folks failed to fall in line. They questioned the government and they hold views that are different from the Prime Minister's. Using the tactic of a schoolyard bully, he has decided to implement the Emergencies Act so that he can control, manipulate, dictate, be punitive and punish.
It should be highlighted that the federal government is utilizing national security tools that were designed to combat terrorism against Canadians who support protests. We must let that sink in for just a moment. The Prime Minister of our country is using laws that are normally used against terrorists, and he is using them against citizens of his own country who hold views that happen to be different from his own. That is extremely alarming. It is vindictive. One commentator said, “It's almost as if the cruelty is the point.”
It did not need to come to this. The reason we are here is that the Prime Minister decided to put a punitive measure in place. On January 15, he required that all truck drivers going across the U.S. border and wanting to return to Canada needed to be double-vaccinated. We are talking about individuals who were earlier declared as heroes, individuals who stayed in the cabs of their truck, aside from maybe refuelling or grabbing a quick snack at a gas station. These individuals have served our country in an incredibly heroic way, and then the Prime Minister made a decision to go after them and put restrictions in place. It was nonsense.
This started a movement of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who started to question the government, question the Prime Minister, question his motives, and fair enough, as they did not add up. Dr. Tam herself was saying that we needed to reassess the mandates that were put in place at that time. She herself was saying that we needed to learn to live with COVID, that we needed to return to normal.
The Prime Minister has turned a deaf ear, a blind eye and has refused to listen. I am not sure what his agenda is, but it certainly is not to serve this country well. It certainly is not in the best interests of Canadians at heart.
Before even knowing who was coming to Ottawa, he refused to listen. His tactics were mean-spirited and divisive in nature. He stigmatized. He antagonized. He traumatized. He went after these individuals telling them they were a fringe minority with unacceptable views. He damaged the unity of this country, pitting one region or one people against another. He crushed the human spirit.
One of my constituents wrote to me. She is an immigrant who moved to Canada about a decade ago. She now has three children and is married. She runs a small business and is a beautiful community participant.
She wrote:
It was mere months ago I filled out the paperwork to become a Canadian citizen. I desire to align myself with a nation I’ve come to love, to stand beside people who make it great, to cast a vote in the bucket of democracy. And yet, I am sickened by the increasingly pervasive narrative being spouted; one where rightness trumps charity...and good faith, and where ‘being Canadian’ is defined not by our humanity but by our political affiliations.
And here I am, awaiting news of my application status, while the Canada I thought I knew crumbles around me, not from Covid-but from the divisive and destructive language being used to define citizenship and belonging.
Further on she wrote:
But what am I saying yes to? A nation that speaks before listening, one that defines ‘being a good Canadian’ in a way that marginalizes everyone who doesn’t fit said description.
She concluded by writing:
I humbly ask that we take steps towards the Canada I first moved to-one where value isn’t gained its given-and given generously by the people who call it home. Because diversity of thought and conscience are greater markers of democracy than the alternative.
This is the deep, hard cry of so many Canadians across this country. We want a unified nation. We want a prime minister who listens to the fellow citizens of this great country. We want to move forward with strength. The Prime Minister has claimed that he wants the same, but in order to do that, it starts with him. He must trust and respect the Canadian people for the Canadian people to do the same. Unfortunately, he has chosen gamesmanship over statesmanship, and it is killing our country.
I urge this House to vote no to the punitive measures that are being discussed here today.
1468 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
