Mr. Chair, I have my issues with the process. We've had a debate. I'm anxious to move on. I disagree with the way the process has been conducted, but that's another issue.
The point here, as I understand it, is that we have no motion on the floor so we're talking in a general sense. What I'm offering to committee is an opportunity to expedite matters. Perhaps government members are under a confused impression about why we're here today.
Let me take the motion that is being proposed by Mr. MacKenzie in two parts. The first has to do with the actions of a number of individuals that were unforgivable, that attacked the city, and that I think all of us condemn in every possible way. I have no problem with that.
The second part of the motion is to commend front-line officers who were working in an exceptionally difficult circumstance. Well, I don't have a problem with that.
But the issue isn't front-line officers. The issue is a Prime Minister who put them there. The issue is with a Prime Minister who made a decision to put the G-20 in downtown Toronto. The issue is with a Prime Minister who decided to not even consult the City of Toronto on placing that summit in the heart of the city. The issue is with a Prime Minister who didn't bother to have a conversation with even the mayor until five minutes before this thing happened. The issue is that this was turned into a security nightmare. All of this was predictable; all of this we knew would happen.
That's the issue, folks. The issue is that the government spent $2 billion, the number might now reach, for security and other goodies related to this, and it became an absolute farce. The issue is that now the government is trying to use officers and the word “security” as a shield, as a way to avoid the word “accountability”. You can't just raise the spectre of our military or police and avoid accountability--avoid accountability for the decisions that were made and the consequences that happened.
I've lived in the greater Toronto region my entire life. I have never seen anything like what happened to our city. As I walked into that city and through its empty streets at the height of tourist season, as l looked at the entirely predictable outcomes unfold....I think no one could help but be disgusted at the way this was handled.
This isn't about front-line officers; it's about the terrible decisions that were made that led up to the complete mess that was the summit. You can put all of the talking points in the world around whatever you want to say, but the reality is that the legacy of this summit is one of waste and one of, frankly, displaying a city, a great city, in the most negative light I've ever seen it.
What I really have a problem with, and it is something that is done consistently, Mr. Chair, is the intellectual dishonesty with which the arguments are framed. Let me take the most recent example. It was just before this House rose, when we dealt with the issue of pardons. In the House of Commons, a member of this committee stood and said that I supported the notion that Karla Homolka should get a pardon. This was five minutes--