SoVote

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/7/22 8:20:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to start by saying that I am quite pleased to rise to speak on the situation we are discussing this evening. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I would have preferred it if we did not have to do this at all. However, it is necessary. I will not go back over everything that has happened or the many regrettable incidents caused by the ongoing occupation, as my colleague has done that brilliantly. Instead, I want to focus on the less emotional elements, such as the missed opportunities and the fact that the situation has been allowed to escalate. There are parties in the House that inherently have to disagree with one another. That is part of politics. However, we have lost sight of the fact that, despite this, we are probably all closer to a common position than we are at odds. This is unfortunately what is happening with the current situation. We have been polarized because of the circumstances. In fact, the worst part is not that we lost control of the situation, but rather that the situation took control of us. We allowed ourselves to become polarized rather than having an intelligent conversation about what to do next and how to get through it. We have become so polarized that we have even somehow managed to forget how disgusted we all are collectively with COVID-19. We ended up ignoring that part. From the beginning, those who criticized the more radical forms of protest were almost accused of rejoicing in the misfortunes of others. They were told that they were against the protesters, so they must be in favour of closing restaurants and perfectly fine with people losing their jobs. That is not how anyone feels, of course, and yet that is the discourse that has taken hold. We have even heard that anyone opposed to people protesting in the street must be against freedom of speech. Having taken part in a number of protests in my youth, which was not all that long ago, I can guarantee that that is not the case for me. The problem is that the Prime Minister missed a chance to prevent the situation from getting to that point. By virtue of his role as leader, he should have helped de-escalate the situation, but that is not what he did. It started when he called some individuals racist or extremist. He indirectly undermined those who were much more moderate by tarring them with the same brush. The result was that the people who were inclined to be more measured may not have wanted to personally condemn some others who were protesting with them. This therefore contributed to a certain polarization, which ultimately served no one. Consequently, people were no longer open to discussing the issues, although many had been ready to do so. I am thinking of certain groups of people. The first group consists of our friends, our neighbours, our family, and here I am using “our” to refer to all MPs. These people were speaking to us. Unless we live under a rock, we could all see that something was happening. These people, our friends and neighbours were telling us on their own that they had taken their daughter to watch the trucks from the overpass, that it was good to see people mobilizing because they were really sick and tired of COVID-19. When we take the time to speak to these people, we realize that we were on the same wavelength on some points. Many people were willing to have their say peacefully. However, the government let the situation drag on and the Ottawa gathering became a sort of manifestation of our collective frustration, taken over by ill-intentioned people who told themselves that they had the support of almost two-thirds of the population. The message was thus hijacked. When we speak to these people, friends, neighbours and families, and we tell them that, from the beginning of the protest some individuals were calling for parliamentarians to be doxed so that people could harass them, they respond that that is not okay and it is not the right way to go about it, even though they are tired of lockdowns and lots of other things. They say they want to talk. As soon as we took the time to talk to these people we could see that we were closer than not, in terms of what they were looking for and what they were thinking. Some protesters showed up in their cars or on foot, and we were able to talk with them, which is something that I did. Sometime around day three of the protest I was waiting to charge my car behind another car with a Quebec flag. Since Saint-Jean-Baptiste is still a ways away, I figured that they must be protesters. I asked them how much longer they would be so I could find another place to charge if necessary. They told me that it would only take about 10 more minutes and then asked me if I was there for the protest. I simply told them that, no, I was an MP and I worked on the Hill. We started talking. It went well because they were open to discussion. We talked about a number of issues, for example, the reason why they were there. They were there to speak out against the fact that truckers had to be vaccinated to cross the border. I asked them whether they were aware that it worked both ways because the United States imposed a vaccine mandate on truckers too, and they replied that they did not know that. I asked them what they thought about the fact that the occupation was resulting in lost income for the very restaurant owners they were advocating for by asking for public health measures to be lifted, and they said they had not thought about that. In the end, we talked for a lot longer than it took to charge the vehicle because our conversation was quite interesting. We parted ways by wishing each other a good evening and thanking each other for the discussion. Unfortunately, the fact that the Prime Minister cut the lines of communication was a missed opportunity to tell parliamentarians to take the time to talk to these people who might think the same way they do. The third group of people who have been robbed of the opportunity to speak intelligently because the situation was allowed to get so toxic is us. We let ourselves get so polarized that we had to wonder if intelligent discussion was even a possibility anymore. We got so polarized that we ended up feeling obligated to state whether we were for or against the occupiers. That did not happen in Quebec City. There was a protest there on the weekend. Everyone clearly thought it was fine. Nothing got out of control. Nobody felt obligated to take sides because it was all very civilized. We got to the point where some were accusing people of condoning racist, violent acts, and others were saying that anyone against the protest was against freedom of expression, even though that is not what is at issue at all. We got so caught up in what was happening here on the Hill that we lost sight of the fact that, had we chosen to waive vaccine patents, for example, we might not be where we are now because the virus would not have mutated. We are hardly even talking about all the frontline hospital workers taking care of the sick. That is the issue. We are in lockdown because hospitals are maxed out and we have to minimize our contacts to reduce the number of infections as much as possible. Ultimately, that is all that matters. We have lost sight of the fact that none of this would have happened had the federal government not decreased health care funding in the past. Lockdowns are a direct consequence of underfunding. I think it is sad that we have reached this point today because we missed an opportunity to have an intelligent conversation about how to find a way out of this. We have become polarized. I hope tonight's debate will serve as a bit of an olive branch extended amongst all parliamentarians so we can remember why we are here, the end goal that everyone aspires to, namely the end of this pandemic.

1422 words

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Ms. Christine Normandin

Feb/7/22 8:31:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for his question. People have done certain things, as he described. We have seen it happen from the beginning of the crisis. However, people have been doing these things individually, and they are often called out by others around them or shamed on social media. The problem is that we let these people join forces. They have assumed the mantle of legitimacy because other, more measured people have joined them, and we have allowed this hot mess to fester. That is the difference. If the occupation had been brought under control sooner, we might still be dealing with isolated acts, but they would be much easier to denounce than something so organized, which has managed to garner some sympathy because it is so vaguely defined. Instead, we let it define itself.

143 words

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Ms. Christine Normandin

Feb/7/22 8:33:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, nor should they be a reason to encroach on the jurisdictions of others. I imagine that is what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was hoping I would say, but I would certainly not say that to him. However, they do not prevent collaboration and that is what we have wanted from the start.

58 words

Context: House Hansard - 25 - Feb/7/22

Ms. Christine Normandin

Feb/7/22 8:35:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick. I obviously do find this deplorable, and I too can see my phone blowing up out of the corner of my eye. It is unfortunate, because we probably would not have reached this point if the situation had been brought under control quickly. I am guessing the members of the Quebec National Assembly did not receive as many hateful messages after last weekend's protest, since the protest was not as polarizing and was much more cordial. As I pointed out, we have more in common with the protesters than not. We have let this protest polarize us.

104 words