44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 11:16:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would begin by reminding our friends across the aisle that we are in the middle of a pandemic and our friends to our right that I would like to hear myself speak.
The pandemic has claimed victims. Some have died, while others are struggling with very serious health problems. Some people are living in a state of anxiety. Some people saw their purchasing power markedly decline because of the inflationary impact of the pandemic, whether it be permanent or temporary, structural or cyclical. Seniors were hit hard by the pandemic, as were the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces.
Of course, handling unusual and unprecedented situations sometimes involves trial and error. We try things that do not immediately work, and sometimes this approach, these trials and errors, can sow doubt. I understand. That is the case for the health restrictions, for the health measures around vaccination and the regulations that required, as well as for the travel restrictions. That is reasonable and understandable.
The answer to all this is, and should always be, information, even if that does not always work and the dissemination of good information remains relative. Unfortunately, the management of the pandemic was undermined by the federal government’s obsession with taking over Quebec’s and the provinces’ powers, imposing conditions outside its jurisdiction, and even subjecting the pandemic to multicultural values.
All of this does make things more difficult to understand. It creates confusion among Quebeckers and Canadians when what we need is quality information. It is also what led to the opposition that emerged in the forms we have been seeing in recent weeks. Fear, doubt and opposition to a government’s ideas and policies are legitimate. Protesting to express them is legitimate. Sedition and insurrection are not legitimate.
Is refusing treatment legitimate?
Is endangering other people’s lives by refusing treatment or vaccination legitimate?
Yesterday, I voluntarily went for my third shot. I was free to do so, and in so doing I was protecting and helping bring back freedom for other, more fragile, people, especially those in seniors residences, who are awaiting the day when they can feel safe enough to leave the house.
Freedom requires striking a balance between individual and collective freedoms. Doing this requires judgment, and that is not currently on display in all parties. Freedom is a test of leadership, the test of freedom. The Prime Minister failed this test because of ideology. He sought to subjugate collective and individual freedoms, to crush the identity of a nation under that of all nations, to deny the nation and talk of a postnational state. He is continuing the work of his father. He is denying Quebec, he is completing the transformative work of trivializing the Quebec nation.
Speaking of freedom, that was the purpose of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the charter of individual rights, the charter that denies French, secularism and the freedom of education, the one that seeks to censor social networks. Though they are an alarming cesspool of profanity these days, they remain a place of free expression, except for hate propaganda. The charter denies collective rights, the collective identity and the nation. Naturally, the Prime Minister stands up for individuals and then he drops the ball.
Freedom is becoming “freedumb”. Driven by fear, doubt and insufficient information, freedom is taking on the appearance of right-wing extremism, which condones anything in excess, encourages civil disobedience, flirts with violence and pollutes social media—and yet the Prime Minister continues to drag his feet. It is in his nature to actively do nothing in times of crisis. It is part of his ideology to show contempt for differences and fan the flames of division. He just does not get it.
Ottawa is under siege. The flag of Prime Minister's country is now being associated with the worst of the worst. He needs to take action, but, as usual, he does not know how, so he pretends to take action. He puts on a show. He deflects people's attention, covers up his failures, and moves a motion that is as heavy-handed as it is useless, a thinly disguised version of the War Measures Act. Thank heavens, it is a watered-down version of the original.
The Prime Minister keeps repeating that the charter freedoms are not being infringed upon. If the Emergencies Act did not infringe on any freedoms, it would not exist. By its very nature, it infringes on freedoms. The Prime Minister's role is not to deny that the act infringes on freedoms but to justify it and explain why it is being used.
The Emergencies Act was not needed for the Ambassador Bridge, not needed for the border in Coutts, not needed for the seizure of weapons in Coutts, and not needed in Quebec. Ironically, Quebec does not want the Emergencies Act enforced on its territory, but the Sûreté du Québec has been called in for backup in Ottawa. They should put that in their pipe and smoke it.
The Prime Minister is saying that the act will be enforced geographically, but that is not how it works. He can say it as much as he wants, but that is not how it works. This is a Canadian act, in keeping with Canadian tradition. As with other traditions, the copy is always a poor imitation of the original.
The Quebec National Assembly wants nothing to do with this act, nor does the Government of Quebec. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour. Conservatives in Quebec are not in favour, either. I am meeting with the NDP leader this afternoon to discuss. Could there be some way for us to come to an understanding?
Only the Ottawa Liberals want it, because the ones from Quebec do not. If Ontario wants this act, that does not make it useful. This could all have been done differently, but that falls on them. Quebec obviously wants nothing to do with it.
The Prime Minister has failed the test of collective freedom. On this, he has a sorry record. He often fails the test of freedom. He abandoned Raif Badawi. He has ignored the Uighurs. He is complicit with Spain against Catalonia. He sneers at Quebec's linguistic aspirations. He sneers at Quebec's secular aspirations. He sneers at freedom of expression and education if it is not in line with what he thinks and says. He starves provinces that do not meet his conditions with respect to health care. Even in security matters, the Prime Minister acts first and foremost by interfering, by grabbing powers that do not belong to him and by intervening in ways that, despite what he says, are not warranted as things now stand. All of Canada, except for the crisis in Ottawa that he himself engineered, sees this.
He has failed the test of freedom of expression, because he has yielded the word “freedom” to his worst enemies: the far right and, more importantly, ignorance. Freedom is a progressive value; freedom is a national value; freedom is a Quebec value; freedom thrives on truth.
Vaccination is a tool of freedom. It is imperfect, of course, but it remains the least bad solution. The sooner we accept it, the sooner all the health measures can be lifted.
Worse, by his failure, he has abandoned the sick to manage a crisis that is completely of his own making.
As for me, I will always defend freedom, especially the freedom of my nation. Quebec is free to make its own choices.
1284 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:58:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we had the lowest death rate in the western world and the highest level of vaccination. The solidarity of Canadians was incredible, yet there was an absolute failure and exploitation of fear by members in the House. The Leader of the Opposition said they wanted to exploit this. There was a failure of the Prime Minister to stand up and show vision, and a failure of police to defend people in the streets. We should never have been at this moment. We are looking like a failed state.
What steps will the leader of the New Democratic Party take to hold the government accountable? It has failed us at every step of the way in this crisis. How can we trust it at this point? How can we say to Canadians that we will make their streets safe and return the rule of law, but we will make sure the Liberals are accountable? How will we do that?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:55:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the science has changed. Canada's top officials, including Dr. Tam, have recommended a review of COVID policies. We are seeing countries around the world with lower vaccination rates dropping their restrictions. We are seeing provinces in our own country dropping restrictions.
Is the government going to stick to its word and follow the science? When will the mandates for Canadian travellers who are fully vaccinated be dropped, and when will the mandates be totally dropped for testing Canadian travellers upon return?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:56:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this transition, including this week's announcement, is possible because of a number of factors, which include our high vaccination rates and the increasing availability of rapid tests and treatments. As we have said all along, Canada's border measures will remain flexible and adaptable, guided by science and prudence.
I have a quote for my colleague opposite. It states, “Everyone entering Canada (by land as well as by air), irrespective of their vaccination status will be required to take a rapid test or possibly a PCR test.” Where is that from? It is from page 19 of the Conservatives' election platform. Do members remember this magazine? It is that one.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:24:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, something my colleague said did not sit right with me. At one point, she said people were tired of jurisdictional excuses. That seems strange to me because I get the sense that that is part of the reason why we are here tonight.
Vaccination rates in Canada and Quebec are among the highest in the world. People here have, more than most, followed public health measures. Despite that, we are one of the last countries to lift restrictions, and that is basically what the people outside are tired of. I understand them. I am tired of it too.
Maybe people are tired of talking about jurisdiction, but it matters to the provinces. Provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, want the government to increase health transfers to strengthen our health care system. If the system had had adequate funding, the crisis might not have been quite so bad.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:14:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member obviously did not listen to my speech. Liberals brag about 90% of truckers being vaccinated, and that is good. I support vaccination, but the fact is that 10% are forced to lose their livelihoods because of the political decisions of a leader who has refused to acknowledge that there are disagreements.
I am pleased that the member is listening to her constituents, but I would be incredibly surprised if she has not heard the alternative opinion. I certainly have, and I acknowledge that fully. I speak with those people who have differing opinions from my own because that is what this place represents. It is an absolute shame that the government is more concerned about silencing those who it disagrees with than engaging in a dialogue that could unify the country. That has to stop and the Prime Minister is dividing the country for his personal political gain.
My fear is, and this is a genuine fear, that if we continue down this path, our country will be torn apart. That is the consequence of failed leadership and the member, I hope, will reflect very carefully on whether she is willing to set the precedent that a prime minister of a political party—
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I must admit it is hard to follow the member for Battle River—Crowfoot's passionate speech.
Nonetheless, here we are tonight debating, after it was implemented without a vote in the House of Commons, the Emergencies Act. I want to take us back about two years. I remember distinctly the talk was about whether the vaccines would be mandatory. There was a study several years ago at the health committee about mandatory vaccines and it was determined at that study, which I believe was in 2011, that it was unconstitutional to make vaccines mandatory.
Fast forward to 2020, we have a global pandemic and the government is saying that vaccination will be our way out of this, and 70% was the number that was floated around as an appropriate level of vaccination. The Prime Minister assured everyone that it would not be mandatory in any case.
Then we came to the election, and suddenly vaccines were becoming mandatory. The government said on the eve of an election, which the Liberals called in the middle of a pandemic, that mandatory vaccines were going to be brought in. Get the jab or lose the job. I remember Conservatives ran on a mandate that said no mandatory vaccines.
The Prime Minister said some of the most divisive things that we have ever heard a prime minister say. In an interview he asked if we have to tolerate these people. What kind of a question is that? Is that something a prime minister would say? Before he was Prime Minister, he said, “Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”. Then, when it suited his political ends, he was suddenly asking if we have to tolerate these people.
I want to talk about the use of the term “these people”. It has been pointed out to me that people have lost their jobs for using the term “these people”. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not lose his job over that.
One of those people is a good friend of mine, an RCMP officer. He had had COVID and had an antibody test. It proved he had antibodies, yet suddenly he was being faced with a mandate to be vaccinated or lose his job. He has five kids. He dreamed his whole life of being an RCMP officer. Now his livelihood, the way he feeds his children and pays for his house, is being put on the line because he must get vaccinated with a vaccine that does exactly what his body has done already in giving him immunity to the virus.
That is the crux of the issue. This mandatory vaccine that has been forced upon us. The Liberals say the country is united and 90% of the people are vaccinated, so why would I be worried about the last 10%. One of the things in democracy is that it has always been about the protection of the minority. Otherwise, we would just live in a dictatorship or tyranny of the majority. There is that reason, and the other reason is that, just because 90% of the population is vaccinated, does not mean that every one of them wanted to be vaccinated.
The fact of the matter is that it was after 50% of the population was vaccinated, the Liberals came in with mandatory vaccines. They forced people to get vaccinated. They say they did not force anybody, but they did say people had to get vaccinated or lose their job. That is not selling vaccines on the merits of vaccines. That is coercion, not informed consent.
It is like they are saying to Canadians, “That's a nice job you have there. It would be too bad if something were to happen to it. By the way, we have this nice vaccine over here.” This is an immense coercion taking place on behalf of the government. Then there was the demonization and terrorization, on behalf of the government, of those folks who were not vaccinated.
In some provinces people were not even able to go the grocery store if they were not vaccinated. That is the backdrop for which we have these protests occurring across the country. The Prime Minister knew that. For over a week, we watched the Canadian flag being waved on overpasses and side roads. Everywhere the convoy went, people came out to greet the convoy, and those images were stunning.
The Prime Minister knew the convoy was coming across the country. He had ample time to react, decide what to do, and determine if the mandates were working. We had 90% of the population vaccinated, when the goal was 70%. The number of cases were declining. The week the truckers were coming across the country he could have paused for a moment and reconsidered everything. Deena Hinshaw and Theresa Tam both said that, but for some reason, the Prime Minister could not come to the conclusion that perhaps he should look at that, so here we are.
The truckers came across the country opposing the mandates. Perhaps there is a website that talks about insurrection and things like that, but the vast majority of the people who stood alongside the road waving their Canadian flags, who did not come to Ottawa but who supported it, were not thinking of an insurrection. They were supporting an end to the mandates.
Here we are, entrenched, and using the largest gun in the arsenal, so to speak, the Emergencies Act. While, at the same time, the border crossings and critical infrastructure that were blocked are no longer blocked. We have seen blockades of critical infrastructure before in this country. We saw the rail blockades of early 2020, which created a significant hardship for this country. The propane that comes out of the ground in Alberta and is put onto trains and shipped to eastern Canada to heat homes was not able to make it there.
However, the Emergencies Act was not invoked at that time. I would not have advised that we invoke it at that point, but there was critical infrastructure being blocked. We have seen blockades of critical infrastructure and roads with respect to projects being built in this country, yet I would not advocate for, nor did we see, the emergency measures act invoked in those cases.
We have recently seen the destruction of millions of dollars of equipment in northern B.C.'s Coastal GasLink project, but the Prime Minister does not seem to acknowledge that, nor is he suggesting we use the emergency measures act with respect to that. However, here we are in Ottawa, where I have not heard of any damage occurring to property, but this has been declared a national emergency for which we must use the largest, most powerful piece of legislation we have in this country to deal with this so-called emergency.
I want to talk about the foreign money pouring in across the border that the Liberals bring up time and again. I would first like to know how much foreign money we are talking about. That is an important piece. Since I was elected, I have been advocating for us to look at the foreign money that is coming across the border. We know the Tides foundation has put over $700 million into an anti-oil sands campaign in northern Alberta. It appears the Liberals agree with that, because they have turned a blind eye to foreign money influencing our politics.
However, when the Prime Minister gets a black eye or his polling numbers are being affected, suddenly the Liberals are worried about foreign money influencing Canadian politics. It is about time they are worried about that, but to freeze the bank accounts of Canadians over this so-called foreign money is crazy.
1305 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:30:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we said right away that we would be voting against the motion on the Emergencies Act, but certainly not for the same reasons as my colleague.
I am hearing something here that is a little unsettling, and that is the connection being made between freedom and vaccination. In his speech, my colleague told us that his parents cannot go to restaurants because they are not vaccinated. That is not up to the House of Commons, it is up to the provinces.
This unfortunate connection they are trying to make to keep sowing confusion helps no one. The member's speech actually tempted me to vote for the motion.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
