SoVote

Feb/7/22 10:16:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, members will forgive me if they thought I was sitting in Queen's Park, as the hon. colleague for York—Simcoe opposite highlighted school closures, the gym that was facing troubles and, of course, businesses. I presume he will not be voting for Doug Ford in the upcoming election in Ontario, because that is the government that is imposing those elements. However, I will agree with the member opposite that we do need to transition beyond COVID. Dr. Theresa Tam is talking about that right now, as are other chief medical health officers. Going back to the protest, in February 2020, the member highlighted the Wet'suwet'en protest and the economic cost that those blockades represented. He said that in committee, and it is on the blues for the record. My questions to him today are these: Is the member not concerned about the economic cost of the blockades that we are seeing in Ottawa, and indeed in other places, and why has he not spoken up for these protesters to go back home?

178 words

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

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/7/22 10:37:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute privilege to rise virtually to give remarks in this emergency debate on a topic that I think is very important to our country and indeed to the people in Ottawa, particularly given what we have seen with the protests to date. I would be remiss if I did not mention that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge. I had the opportunity about a week ago to present in the House for 10 minutes on the reply to the Speech from the Throne. I used it as an opportunity to articulate what I was seeing vis-à-vis the protests in Ottawa. Since then, seven days have transpired, and this has given me an opportunity to refine my thoughts on what we have seen. Members have talked about MPs and the opportunity to engage. I have seen that. I have had the opportunity to walk through and engage with people on my way back and forth to my hotel. I will take this opportunity to opine on what I have seen. Let me give a synopsis on what my remarks detailed about a week ago. I explained to my colleagues that my father was a truck driver, and that one element I think is extremely important, and perhaps a silver lining of the pandemic, has been a reflection and recognition of the important role that our essential workers play, who sometimes can be unsung heroes in their own right. As I did a week ago, I will go on record to thank all those men and women who get up and make an honest living while serving society in an invaluable way. Hopefully all Canadians are able to reflect on what they are able to bring to the table, whether it be truck drivers, nurses or other professionals on the front lines of this pandemic. They are doing important work and deserve to be recognized. I reminded the House why some of the provincial and territorial measures are in place, including the measures that the Government of Canada has introduced. I would agree with my colleagues that yes, we are all tired, and yes, we want to be able to move away from COVID, and I take notice that other jurisdictions around the world are moving in that direction. However, the reality is that we are moving in this direction on some of the protocols we have in place because a disproportionate number of unvaccinated Canadians represent the ICU cases in Canadian hospitals from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia. I gave a statistic, and I take notice that it may shift on a daily basis, but last week, for example, 44% of ICU cases in Nova Scotia were from the 9% of Nova Scotians who are unvaccinated. It becomes a debate, and we have heard members go through it, of individual freedoms versus collective freedoms. I will refer members back to my speech from a week ago. There was a tension. Frankly, every parliamentarian, and indeed every Canadian, is going to have a different ideological bend on where exactly that line should be. I gave the example of Mark Clarke, a dedicated volunteer in my community. Some members might have heard the S.O. 31 I gave in the House last week that was, unfortunately, about his passing. His surgery was delayed for three weeks, the open-heart surgery he needed, because there were not enough beds in the health care system in Nova Scotia to accommodate him. We can certainly reflect back and talk about the challenges that have existed in the health care system. Our government has provided supports. The provincial and territorial governments are working hard to make sure the system does not collapse. It speaks to some of the fragility that exists, but that is the situation we are in. That is why we are imposing these measures as we try to reduce the spread. We are trying to avoid situations, like Mark Clarke's situation, where people are not able to access surgeries and they unfortunately pass away as a result. There is a spectrum there in terms of individual freedoms and protection versus harm and what the line should be. Every member in the House is going to have a perspective on that, but the reality is that this is driving decision-making at this point. I also highlighted the fact that no Canadian in the country is required to take the vaccine. Again, we can weigh the consequences of the freedom to choose to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, and decide if the repercussions of such are fair and equitable. I think that is all fair game in the House. However, the idea that individuals do not have the freedom to choose whether they want a vaccine is a fallacy. Frankly, I want to be mindful of the importance of colleagues in the House in the tone and measures we set. As we have heard from colleagues who have spoken on this tonight, it is important to bring down the rhetoric. I think all parliamentarians, all 338 of us, have a role, as do elected colleagues in other places of the country. It is not one individual or one side of the House. We all have a role to play, and it is important to be mindful of that in the days ahead. I want to move to the protest in question, because that is the nexus. That is what we are talking about today. Yes, I take notice that perhaps there are very well-intentioned people. In fact, as I went through some of the protests in the last week, I saw individuals who would perhaps be reflective of people who live in my riding, individuals who had certain concerns and wanted to bring them forward. I also saw a very sinister crowd. We saw Confederate flags and swastikas. We have seen windows shattered in businesses, individuals flying pride flags in Ottawa being terrorized and individuals being shoved to the ground. I could go on and on with instances. While there may be well-intentioned individuals, and I trust there are, there are also individuals who want to do harm not just to parliamentarians or individuals, but to Canadian democracy. They are calling for the overthrow of governments and suggesting that they can go to the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. It is, frankly, insanity. Some members cannot call it what it is, but they need to do so. This brings me to my point. If people protesting here in Ottawa or elsewhere in the country fashion themselves as well-intentioned individuals who want to exercise their right to protest under subsection 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is fine. However, they should recognize that their voices are being drowned out right now by individuals who are far more sinister and have far more sinister views. The point has been made. As other parliamentarians have said in the House, to those who are the good ones, it is time to go home. It is time to leave and let the people of Ottawa have their rights and freedoms back, their ability to go to work unhindered, their ability to go on with their lives without fireworks and horns and the whole circus that we have seen here in Ottawa. I have to be careful with my own words, but I hope everyone senses my passion. To the good ones who are watching today, it is time to go home. Indeed, members of Parliament will stand in the House, as we have seen here tonight, to continue to debate the issues that matter to them. That is what we do in a democracy. We as members of Parliament bring information back from constituents who we hear from. We bring their messages and debate them on the floor of the House of Commons. We do not clog up streets. I want to talk about the Wet'suwet'en protests that we saw in 2020. At that time, there were Conservative members of the House rightfully calling for an end to the blockade. It was disrupting the economic prosperity of the country. People were shutting down critical infrastructure. I have noticed that some Conservative members, particularly in the last few days, have started to break away and talk about that, but on the whole, there has been hypocrisy from the Conservative Party of Canada. It has not used the same language and same principle. I stand here as a member of Parliament saying that regardless of how we view the issue and regardless of what our issue may be, we do not have the right to shut down critical infrastructure in this country. We do not have the right to do what people are doing. If people want to come to Parliament Hill and protest, that is their right. It is a constitutionally protected one. However, to create the disruption and harm going on right now is not right, and every single member of the House should be calling for the same thing: for individuals to go home. Where do we go from here? Individuals have suggested the Prime Minister should negotiate or talk with protesters. Who does he negotiate with? It is mob rule right now. To the members who have suggested that here tonight, who would they suggest the Prime Minister speak to in that group? It is not clear to me who the leadership of this group is, and even those who are seemingly leading have a much more sinister view. It is time, as the ministers have indicated, for the police to use their discretion to make sure that this protest is wound down so we can carry on with the business of the nation and members of Parliament can articulate in the House what needs to be debated.

1656 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/7/22 10:48:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to address my colleague's first point about individuals who are choosing to protest. I have no issue with individuals who want to protest. I have an issue with people who are blockading highways in Alberta and people who are blockading the downtown of Ottawa. The member may be suggesting that governments should acquiesce to individuals who protest, and I understand governments need to listen and to take them into account. However, that does not always mean they have to agree. If the member opposite thinks a government should just acquiesce and do what individuals are suggesting is wrong, and that this is the way we should run our democracy in this country, that is a very poor view. In relation to the aspect of financing, I absolutely agree that if we are going to move on a law to address foreign interference, it should apply to all individuals and through all causes, if that is the true desire of where the government and parliamentarians want to go.

173 words

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

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/7/22 10:50:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Of course, the federal government's role with regard to policing matters is to be in favour of increasing the number of officers on the ground. I think that the role of the Government of Canada is to work with the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario to find solutions and help people on the ground. Ultimately, it is up to the Ottawa Police Service or the RCMP to find the best way to intervene in order to stop the protesters.

92 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/7/22 10:51:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think important investments need to be made in our health care system. However, I do not know if I necessarily agree that they should be transfers without strings from the Government of Canada to ensure that outcomes are being delivered. I do not speak for the Government of Canada. I am a member of Parliament who happens to be in the governing caucus, so I will let our cabinet speak on that issue. What I will say is that there are opportunities for private delivery, still under a single-payer model and the public model, to deliver outcomes. It is not just about money. It is about how we can have better management in health care systems as well.

122 words