House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was data.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, since we are all gathered here, I seek unanimous consent to give two minutes to the member for Burnaby South so that he may ask a question.
COVID-19 ProtestsEmergency Debate
The Speaker Anthony Rota
I wish to confirm that according to the motion adopted earlier, there is no way to propose new motions or new changes.
I am sorry, but that is the rule the House adopted, and I must stay within those parameters.
The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
I am very glad to be speaking about this pressing issue that really has Canadians glued to their television sets. The convoy has been all over Ottawa and across every major city in Canada. We have even seen it spread to other countries around the world. I am very glad that after two long years of division on COVID that we are finally beginning to debate this important matter in this historic House of democracy.
I did want to begin my speech by talking about what kind of politician one has to be to make a difference in this place. I think every MP in the House has a bit of a different style. When I first arrived, I wanted to be a bridge builder. That really came from where I grew up and where I went to university. I grew up in a small farming community in rural Manitoba to four generations of Canadian farmers, so I had a very entrenched rural, Prairie upbringing and values. Then I went to McGill University in Montreal, a very prestigious, elite, liberal university. I met kids from all over the world with all different political views and world views and really got an incredible experience learning about how other people think about the world.
I have found that often, although parties will disagree, and someone will say I am a staunch Liberal or Conservative or NDP, there is actually a lot more that we have in common. Something I believe that all parties at their core have in common is a belief that all Canadians and all people of this world deserve to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. That is how I approach these divisive issues that we, as MPs, encounter all the time. They are never easy to talk about. They are very difficult issues. I look to try to build a bridge so that we can come together as Canadians and agree on a peaceful path forward. That is how I have been trying to look at the very divisive situation in Ottawa right now.
What I would really like to see is a Prime Minister who calls for national unity. Last week, I spoke in the House about a lot of the division that we are seeing in the country between east versus west and rural versus urban, particularly now during the pandemic. We have heard so much trauma from our constituents. If there is any member in the House who does not believe that Canadians have been through trauma these past two years, they clearly have not been doing their jobs and listening to their constituents.
It has been horrific, the things that I have heard. We hear about young children who are so depressed they do not want to eat. Eating disorders are through the roof. We have heard about seniors and elderly in our care homes who have opted for medical assistance in dying, rather than live one more month through isolation in care homes. I have had widowed, elderly women call and cry to me on the phone about how lonely they are and they do not want to go on. I have had grown men who have called me crying because their businesses are falling apart. Divorces, abuse at home, alcohol dependency and drug dependency, all of these terrible things are up in our country because people are just trying to cope and are breaking down.
From that perspective, I do not really see what is going on across the country as all that surprising. To me, it seems like an eruption of pain, trauma and frustration that has been simmering for two long years and governments have not been listening to that pain and trauma. Despite having rapid tests, vaccines and all the different types of tools and scientific knowledge, governments have repeatedly relied on harsh lockdown measures and divisive mandates to control this virus.
Meanwhile, we see the Prime Minister who today got up in the House and again othered Canadians who do not agree with him. This is the man who, for six years, has said that diversity is our strength, but if anybody does not agree with everything he says, they are in his bad books and they will not get a chance to be heard; they do not have a right to be heard.
Last week, I brought to the floor of the House of Commons remarks he had said during that $600-million unnecessary election. He said so many times before he called that election that there were vaccines for “all those who want it”, and it was a choice. He said that repeatedly. He must have said it a thousand times. Then, within days of calling that election, he was yelling into a microphone at a Liberal rally that people have the right not to get vaccinated, but they don't have the right to sit next to someone who is. In his remarks today he said, “This is not a fight against one another. It is a fight against the virus”. Those remarks suggest something very different.
When it comes to an election, scoring political points and winning votes, the Prime Minister is very happy to divide Canadians and pitch them against each other for their different personal health views. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing politicians use this as an evil wedge tool to rip Canadian families apart.
I cannot tell members how much anger and tears I saw in the last election six months ago. Now it is even worse. Neighbours will not talk to each other. With respect to Christmas family dinners, even if there were no lockdowns during Christmas, it is almost a nightmare to get families in the same room now if there is one person who does not share their views. It is a nightmare.
With respect to colleagues at work, last week I shared a story of a social worker, a young mom I met on her front step during the pandemic. She was sharing with me a story that she had received a hero of the year award last year. This year she went above and beyond to help people during a pandemic before there were vaccines. She stepped up as hero of the year for her job, and now, she said, no one would talk to her and she was going to get fired because of one personal health choice she made. As much as others have tried, there was no convincing this woman otherwise. I do not know how public health officials and public officials get behind policies that do that to Canadians.
We are one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, and the current government continues to use that to bludgeon people to submit to its policies. I never thought when entering politics two and a half years ago at a federal level that we would see a government that was so keen to divide Canadians on something so deeply personal.
As I have said before and will say again, I denounce any hateful and violent acts outside and whoever is up to no good. I say “Shame on you ” to whoever is up to that kind of mischief and hateful rhetoric and actions, but what I am seeing across the country is people mobilizing because their governments have not listened to them for two years. They have been experiencing trauma for two years and no one is listening to them, so what choice do they have left?
These people have all emailed their MPs. They have called them and they have been turned down by their MPs. I am sure there are members of the public from Papineau, from the Prime Minister's riding, who have reached out because they have a different perspective on this issue and have been traumatized and fired from their jobs for a personal health choice. There are millions of Canadian, millions, who have been deeply ostracized from society, and when we do not listen to those people, they mobilize. We have seen protests across this country for over a century, and rightly so, as we have a right to peaceful protest. I would ask the protesters outside to do their best to stay vigilant and stay peaceful.
We are seeing other governments around the world with lower vaccination rates step up to say that they have heard their citizens say they have been traumatized and are moving forward with a deadline and a plan to have no more mandates, no more masks and no more distancing. They are allowing them to travel, to live their lives and to hug each other again. They have provided them with a date, a plan and a threshold. We have had absolutely none of that in Canada from the Prime Minister. People have been traumatized and are mobilizing because they need some hope. They need somebody in this House of privilege to come down from our ivory towers and say to the little people that we hear them, that we apologize that we traumatized them for two years. We need somebody to step up and give them some hope and a deadline.
The member opposite is laughing. The people in this House are incredibly privileged. That member has kept his job. Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs, and he is laughing about his own privilege. What has he done to serve members who are marginalized during this pandemic in his community except laugh at them in this House of Commons? Shame on that member.
I asked the government two years ago in the House, and I would ask it again, to do everything it can, to go to other countries to see what they are doing and what their best practices are. How is it that other highly advanced, developed nations like the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States, which have all the same tools we have, all the economic resources we have, whose citizens have done all of the work and made all the sacrifices, have a plan for hope as to when they will get back to normal and get their lives back?
Do members think the people outside want to be here? Those people do not want to be here. They want to be working, but that right was taken away from them. When is there going to be a plan from the current Prime Minister? When is there going to be compassionate leadership to say that Canadians have done the work, that we have the tools and that we are moving forward? Our public health doctors have told us as well that it is time to move forward, that it is time to revisit these harsh mandates and divisive policies.
I will end on this. I am very passionate about this issue, and I think we all are, from our different perspectives. I will continue to be a bridge-builder to reach out and try to understand where others are coming from. It would just be incredible if we could see members of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister do the same. It is time to build a bridge.
Andy Fillmore LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Burnaby South for instigating this debate tonight and for his remarks.
The member for Kildonan—St. Paul knows that the interim Conservative leader, the member for Portage—Lisgar, encouraged her party to not discourage protesters from leaving but rather to encourage them to stay and make the occupation the Prime Minister's problem. Shortly afterward, when confronted with the horrific and violent deeds of the occupiers, her interim leader recycled Donald Trump's hateful and disgusting turn of phrase that there were good people on both sides.
Even tonight, in this very House in this very debate, that same interim leader tried to stoke the fires of division when asking the Prime Minister questions. Perhaps the next thing the interim leader will say is to tell the occupiers to stand back and stand down.
The behaviour of some of the members on the member for Kildonan—St. Paul's side of the House has been as repugnant as the behaviour of those out on the street. I would like to ask the member how in the world she believes the actions of her leader and her colleagues will help to end this unthinkable and un-Canadian disaster unfolding outside of these very doors.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member who laughed when I said that members of Parliament in the House have extraordinary privilege. We have been able to keep our jobs.
I am very proud of our leader for stepping forward today and putting forward a call to action of the Prime Minister. She asked him today if he will meet with members of the other parties. Will they get together, sit at the table and say this is an unprecedented demonstration in Canadian history, it is time to get together, put partisanship aside and work together to see how we are going to have a peaceful resolution to this.
As the shadow minister for public safety for Canada, I have grown increasingly concerned that without a peaceful resolution and compassionate leadership from the Prime Minister and that member of Parliament, that we are going to see this escalate. The Liberals are stoking the fires, pouring diesel on it, so to speak, and raising the temperature with their mean language and name calling when they should be responsible and lowering the temperature. I would like to see from Liberal members of Parliament and from the Prime Minister some compassionate leadership. It is time to get together at the same table and talk about solutions.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, as I walk through this occupation, I often reflect as the veterans' spokesperson for the NDP on the people who fought for us, who fought for other countries, stand up and speak out against any kind of oppression of the people who fought for the freedom to have a protest in this country.
I read an article today which spoke about veteran who was so upset to see people parking on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. He went there to take pictures of those licence plates to make sure that they were removed and that those people would be held accountable.
Right now in our nation's capital, both that monument and the aboriginal monument are surrounded by fences to protect those monuments for the very people who fought for us to have the privilege to stand in the House.
I am wondering if the member could talk about where the line is to stand up against people who are causing concerning violence and doing things that we should all be appalled by.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is incumbent upon all members of Parliament to stand up against violence, bullying and divisive rhetoric. I have seen that repeatedly.
I have done that repeatedly particularly when again we see a Prime Minister of this country who for over a year and a half said that vaccines for all those who want them and then within days of called a $600 million unnecessary election that further divided and wounded traumatized Canadians within days from saying vaccine is a choice. He said that people have the right not to get vaccinated, but they have no right to sit next to someone who is. That is the kind of dehumanizing language that incites people and gets their temperature up and mobilizing. That is the type of language that is irresponsible that we need to bring down. The Prime Minister should not be saying things like that.
I am from rural Manitoba and we supported the NDP for decades. Why? Because it was the NDP who stood up for the marginalized, people who did not have a voice in this privileged House of Commons. Where has their voice been from the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs? Where is the voice for the social worker who is too afraid to get a vaccine and lost her job? Where is their advocacy for them? I do not know, I have not seen it.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.
This evening, for the Prime Minister's first official public appearance since the protest currently happening on Parliament Hill began, I would have expected him to announce something. I would have expected the Prime Minister to tell us what he plans to do to find a peaceful solution to this situation that has been going on for far too long already, that has been here far too long for the people of the Ottawa region, and that has been here for far too long for all Canadians. I would have expected the Prime Minister to tell us his plan.
I figured that once the Prime Minister came out of hiding, he would tell Canadians the next steps for dealing with this pandemic and tell us how we will safely, slowly and objectively lift the health measures that have been imposed on Canadians for two years now. I am not talking about all Canadians. I am only talking about those who fall under federal jurisdiction, under his responsibility. I was not even asking him to go further, but I would have expected him to point out that 86% of Canadians are vaccinated, 80% of Canadians have received one dose, and the most vulnerable Canadians are getting a third dose. We are in an enviable position compared to the rest of the world, so I would have expected Prime Minister to tell us what we are going to do now, in the coming weeks and months, to finally get back to normal.
The provinces did it. They are doing it. Other countries are in the process of doing it. They are announcing that restrictions are being lifted because the illness we are currently facing is very different than the one we dealt with at the outset. Above all, the tools we currently have are much better than what we had at the start of the pandemic. At the start, we did not know what the virus was, we did not have a vaccine and we were not testing for the virus. The only option was to shut down while waiting for the scientists to tell us what we could do. That is what we did, Canadians did it and we were proud to support measures to ensure that Canadians could stay at home.
Two years later, the vaccination rate is 86%. That is what was asked of us. We were asked to get vaccinated, and we did it. Two years later, we have been vaccinated, but the Prime Minister, who must be the only first minister in the whole country to say so, is telling us to keep getting vaccinated because there is no plan to lift the health measures.
I will say one thing. Yes, people need to continue getting vaccinated. We have been in favour of vaccination from the beginning. The Conservatives were the first to stand up in the House to demand that the government make agreements with pharmaceutical companies so that we would have enough vaccines for everyone. I remember that very clearly because I was there. The government was very slow to take action. It was also slow to close the borders and to recognize that there was a pandemic. However, it was quick to shut down the disease intelligence task force. It seems this government has always been one step behind from the start. Unfortunately, right now, Canadians need to hear something different, a more positive message.
How does the Prime Minister plan to recover from the crisis? That is what we want to know, and that is what we would have liked to hear from the Prime Minister this evening. That is what I would like to hear from my Liberal colleagues instead of hearing them repeat, in the media and everywhere, all kinds of falsehoods about the position of the people on this side of the House. That is the reality.
It is easy. The Liberals are not fulfilling their responsibilities. They have been in hiding all this time, waiting in the hopes that perhaps someone else will resolve the problem. Meanwhile, the problem is not getting solved.
I heard the mayor of Ottawa cry for help and ask someone to intervene. I saw police services ask for help, ask someone somewhere to do something to end the situation. People are in dire need of leadership.
Mayor Watson cannot change what is happening across Canada. He is doing his best to look after his municipality. He has too much on his plate. He is asking the Prime Minister to help, but the Prime Minister is not doing anything, saying anything or announcing anything. He is sitting this one out, hiding somewhere. He popped out this evening to deliver a totally meaningless speech. That is the fact of the matter, and Canadians are done with it.
In the early days, here is how we learned about the virus: We knew someone who knew someone who had had COVID‑19. There were degrees of separation, but we were afraid because we did not know anything about it.
Now, though, I can say that I had COVID‑19 over the holidays. My children, my wife and my neighbour also had COVID‑19. The thing is, we are still living with the same rules we had at the start of the pandemic. Actually, it is worse, because the government wants to make more rules for truckers and interprovincial transportation. I can think of no way to describe the government's current response but to say that it is adding fuel to the fire.
Today, the leader of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, asked the Prime Minister to commit to a process that could lead to a peaceful resolution of the dispute. She wrote a letter and sent a copy to the leaders of the two other opposition parties.
In her letter, the leader asks for a meeting of the leaders of these four parties to find solutions to de-escalate the protests, calm the situation and allow the people of Ottawa to get back to their lives and their normal activities. To those watching, the proposal sent to the party leaders today came from the Conservative leader.
In her letter, the leader states that Canadians want and need a peaceful resolution to this impasse. I feel that people back home, and indeed people everywhere, are fed up. They are exhausted and cannot take it anymore. They need a real leader to stand up and give them hope and a plan to get through this crisis. I am not talking about a light at the end of the tunnel because that turn of phrase did not work for the Premier of Quebec, François Legault.
The letter suggests that it is time to de-politicize the response to the pandemic. Canadians across the country have come together, made sacrifices and done what is necessary to keep their families and communities safe. They were even encouraged to hear Dr. Tam say that we need to find a more sustainable way of dealing with the pandemic and recommending that that all existing public health policies be re-examined with the provinces and territories so that we can back to some normalcy.
Dr. Tam is saying that we have to lay out a plan for moving back to normality and begin living with the variant, the virus, COVID-19. Canadians' health comprises mental health as well as physical health. At some point, we must start balancing the two, and I believe that we are at that point now.
The leader of the official opposition believes, and this is very important, that the leaders of the federal parties have a responsibility to help our country and our frustrated citizens. She sincerely hopes that the leaders of the four main parties can show leadership by coming together to talk about solutions and to follow the science rather than the politics when it comes to mandates.
This appeal was made to the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. We hope that the leaders of the four parties will meet to discuss and find a solution to this crisis and put a peaceful end to the protests in Ottawa, as well as those in Quebec City, Toronto, Alberta and across the country.
It is possible to listen to and talk with one another, but, above all, it is possible to give Canadians hope. Let us do so by asking our four party leaders to meet and try to find a solution together.
Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. Days ago, an email is leaked in which the leader of the official opposition stated that the Conservatives should not ask the protesters to leave and should instead make this the Prime Minister's problem. However, now we are led to believe by the member that the Leader of the Opposition is suddenly the one bringing everybody together to come up with a solution. Is that what the member is trying to say?
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not trying; I am saying it. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to do something good for Canadians, and I will support her 100% with that.
It is true that the Prime Minister has a responsibility to deal with what we are facing right now. I stand with that, because he was hiding for more than a week instead of addressing this urgent and very disastrous matter.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, from the start of this emergency debate, we have heard many of the Conservative members stand up and speak out against the government's lack of proactivity, and rightly so. We agree with them on that.
However, one thing is unclear. What is the Conservatives' actual position? Where exactly do they stand in all of this?
My partner works in the health care industry. She is a nurse and, everyday, she has to call people who contracted COVID-19 to tell them what they need to do so they do not spread it to other people. She is frustrated that the situation has not been resolved. She is worried that the health care system will end up in a worse predicament than it is in now.
In that respect, we see that the Conservatives seem to want to get political mileage out of the fact that people are fed up with the public health measures. I would really like to understand what message the Conservatives have for the people who are protesting outside right now.
Are they telling them to stay? Are they telling them to go home? Are they telling them to follow the health measures?
I would like to understand how the Conservatives want to get through the pandemic and what message they have for the protesters.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am an opposition member. On Friday, I asked the House a clear question. I said that it was time to put an end to the protest. I also said that it was time to put an end to the restrictions that sparked the protest.
I did not get any answer from the government. That is the problem. The government is trying to make this crisis someone else's, anyone else's, responsibility, even though it is the one that started it by choosing to divide Canadians. It chose to call an election after imposing the vaccine mandate. That is the reality. The one who is playing politics with COVID-19 is the one who has been hiding for the past 10 days.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I agree with him on one point: The Liberal government bears some responsibility and leadership is lacking at the moment. That is why this protest, this siege or occupation of Ottawa, has unfortunately been dragging on for 10 days.
I would also like to point out the cacophony of noise coming from the Conservative Party at the moment. This convoy announced from the outset that it wanted to overthrow a democratically elected government and replace it with some kind of committee with the Senate and the Governor General. This is a fiercely undemocratic position, which has been supported by the leader of the Conservative Party and the member for Carleton. Those are the facts.
As the convoy protesters entered the city centre and intimidated, harassed and spat on residents, several Conservative MPs had their pictures taken with these people, who are acting like thugs. What is the current position of the Conservative Party?
COVID-19 ProtestsEmergency Debate
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep it to 30 seconds, so I will focus on one very important aspect.
The acts of hate and racism are abhorrent and we denounce them wholeheartedly. These types of actions have no place in a democracy, no matter what is being protested.
However, the right to protest is entrenched in Canada. I have often seen my colleague protesting in Montreal for all kinds of causes, in all sorts of protests that have sometimes ended in violence. That does not mean that the protesters' original cause was not worthwhile. It means that some individuals hijacked the cause.
I am saying that we must denounce the acts of racism and hate, but we must allow people to express themselves. People have dealt with too much over the past two years and need to be able to express themselves. If it does not happen on Parliament Hill, it will happen everywhere across Canada.
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here this evening. Let me start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.
I thank the NDP for proposing this emergency debate. As I said earlier, it is high time we talked about the elephant in the room: the occupation of Ottawa. What is happening is unbelievable. Since the protest began, protesters have kept on protesting and parliamentarians have kept on sitting. We are like two solitudes. Neither group is talking to the other. Most importantly, the government is not talking to the protesters, so we are at an impasse.
This protest against mandatory vaccination for truckers who have to cross the Canada-U.S. border quickly got out of control. We are not just talking about a minority of truckers any more. We often hear about how 90% of truckers are vaccinated. That means the ones here are a small minority making demands primarily about this measure, but also about other things, such as the public health measures imposed by the Legault government and other measures imposed by the Liberal government. The whole thing is now bigger than anyone thought possible.
There are people who are saying dangerous things and making claims that are all over the map. There are people who are intimidating journalists and some Ottawa residents. There are people who are being disrespectful and who enjoy blocking public roadways. We agree that protesting is entirely legitimate and perfectly legal. In this case, it is how protesters are going about it that is not so legitimate. It is more than just disruptive; it has become illegal. No one has the right to park their vehicle in the middle of the street and think there will be no consequences.
The movement quickly drew in conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccine activists, far-right groups and people who are simply against health measures.
Let us turn back the clock a bit. Protesters converged in Ottawa on January 29 and brought downtown to a standstill on Wellington Street. A number of incidents occurred, such as a protester carrying a German Nazi flag, others with Confederate flags, motorists parking on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and other protesters urinating on it. Some protesters put their signs on the Terry Fox statue and on other statues. Others also went looking for meals at a local homeless shelter.
The incessant noise from the protesters and the inconvenience caused by the fact that many streets are blocked has caused a lot of friction with residents. Some residents even organized counter-protests. Businesses have lost a lot of money because of disruptions resulting from the occupation of the downtown.
Some people were unable to make it to medical appointments because of the traffic. That is what happened to a four-year-old boy from Gatineau who is receiving cancer treatment but was unable to get to his appointment because of the traffic in downtown Ottawa. Protesters threw rocks and hurled racist insults at paramedics. They also built shelters for themselves and set up a well-organized system for getting gas and especially diesel supplies.
In short, this has gotten out of control. We understand that people are fed up with the pandemic and fed up with public health measures. We are all in the same boat. We are all really fed up. However, there is a way to express one's displeasure. Even though I do not agree at all with the protesters' demands, I have to say that the protesters in Quebec City behaved a lot better than those in Ottawa. Were the protesters in Quebec City more civilized? It is a valid question, but I think that things went more smoothly because the Quebec government was better prepared.
The federal government knew that there might be fall-out if it put that restriction in place at the border. I think that the government should have been better prepared. When it found out that thousands of protesters were physically and even financially preparing, to the tune of millions of dollars, to come to the capital and protest in front of the Parliament buildings, I think the federal government should have been a little more concerned.
Jean Baillargeon, someone I really admire, wrote about this in Le Soleil today, and his headline is quite telling. It said, “Managing the Trucker Crisis: Ottawa failed and Quebec took responsibility”. Mr. Baillargeon wrote the following:
Successfully managing a crisis requires two fundamental elements, preparation and leadership. Clearly, in the trucker crisis, the City of Ottawa failed miserably while Quebec City took responsibility and contained its protest.
From the outset, when the Minister of Public Safety was asked a question about this, he answered that it was not his role to tell the police what to do. We understand that it is not his role, but he could show leadership, work with the police and create a game plan, at the very least. The protesters are directing their message to the federal government, not the police.
In times of crisis, a real leader would normally travel to the site and take charge. In this case, the Prime Minister has been nowhere to be found. We recognize that he was forced to isolate because of COVID‑19, but he was healthy enough to participate virtually in activities like question period and hold press conferences from his home. The only statement he made was to tell the protesters to stop whining. Telling people who do not want to get vaccinated to go get vaccinated does not do any good.
The federal government appeared weak to the protesters. I think that is what emboldened them to keep up the civil disturbance in the name of their own freedom, but at the expense of the freedom of Ottawa residents.
Let me get back to the comparison to the protest in Quebec City, for which the Quebec government showed leadership. The Government of Quebec started by clearly stating that it would not tolerate any unlawful behaviour. The mayor and police officers worked together to ensure that the protest would be calm and respectful, and that is what happened. They did not let the protesters settle in, so they all left on Sunday evening. The protesters are still here in Ottawa and plan to stay, since no one is keeping them from staying.
It should be the role of the Prime Minister and the role of the Minister of Public Safety to send a clear message that the federal government will not tolerate this, that it will provide the necessary support to the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa police, and that it will be sure to stay in communication with the Government of Ontario, the Ontario police and the RCMP.
Earlier last week, we proposed convening a crisis task force to take the lead, provide updates to the public, open a dialogue with protesters, and at least give the impression that something is being done. However, the Minister of Public Safety clearly said in the House on Friday, in response to a question from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, that the federal government has never tried to talk to the various protest spokespeople and is offloading all responsibility for negotiations onto the police. However, the protesters came here to talk to the federal government.
I agree that the protesters should never have been allowed to settle in, but now that they seem to be here for good, what do we do? Obviously, the City of Ottawa is at the end of its rope, as are residents and police officers. Yesterday, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency to get more support from other levels of government, particularly the federal government, since the municipality feels helpless given that the protesters' demands target the federal government. The City of Ottawa said so itself and is begging for help. This morning, Ottawa city council voted in favour of a motion to officially request help from the federal and provincial governments.
The message could not be clearer. We have been saying so since last week, since the beginning of the protests or siege. The City of Ottawa is being dragged in, and police are saying that they do not have enough officers. What more will it take for the federal government to take action?
The minister sent an additional 275 RCMP officers to help out, and that is great. We are happy about that, but he keeps saying that the ball is in the city's court. I agree, to a certain extent, but I think that the government has a responsibility here, and it is obviously not living up to that responsibility.
This evening we heard Liberal members, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, say their piece. They used their speaking time to denounce abusive behaviour, as we all have been doing over the past week in the media and here in the House. However, this evening, we wanted to hear them talk about the game plan. It is good that the government has sent more RCMP officers, but what else is it going to do? Nothing more was said about that. What mandate were these officers given? Will they continue to carry out monitoring and security duties, or will they actually put an end to the siege happening in the streets?
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety missed a golden opportunity to send a strong, clear message, to show that they are in control of the situation and that they will not let the situation deteriorate. We have seen abusive behaviour, and we do not want to see any more, but we are not sheltered from that with what is going on outside.
What we have seen this evening is unfortunate. I will no doubt receive tons of hateful messages for what I said this evening, because, once again, I took a position against the protest. It is also unfortunate to see our society so divided, but I am doing my job, and it is high time the federal government did its job too.
Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)
Mr. Speaker, the primary request that is being made by the leaders of the convoy is that the Governor General dissolve this Parliament and appoint the Senate and the Governor General to form a “citizens of Canada” committee. Does this seem to the member like a group that we can enter into negotiations with effectively?
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I would like to correct him. The initial demand that sparked this protest had to do with the federal government's rule that truckers had to be vaccinated to cross the Canada-U.S. border. Since the beginning of the protest, I have not seen the federal government try to initiate a dialogue or even send a message to the protesters.
Of course, the situation has deteriorated. I have already spoken about that. Some demands are incoherent, while others are more legitimate. There is a collective sense of frustration, and that is what people want to tell us. I do not think it is going to help the situation if the government does not say anything back or if it just tells the protesters to stop complaining and go get vaccinated. That is not what is going to get truckers to get back in their cabs tomorrow morning and leave Parliament Hill.
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her sincere desire to find a solution and work together. I am upset with the Liberals' lines of questioning, which are adversarial.
We know the Prime Minister, instead of coming out to end the vaccine mandates, as the member said, was name-calling and demonizing and dehumanizing these Canadians. He has infringed on their charter rights and freedoms. In order to continue that, he needs to show it is demonstrably justified.
Today the CDC recognizes natural immunity. The WHO scientists recommend dropping mobility restrictions. Johns Hopkins says that restrictions and lockdowns do not work. Dr. Fauci and The Lancet say that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people have transmitted the virus equally since the delta variant. The science says we could come out with a plan to stop the restrictions and get back to normal.
Would the member support the opposition leaders and the government getting together to let these demonstrators know there is a plan, there is a solution and there is an end? Let us end this together.
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
That is basically what the Bloc Québécois has been proposing from the start: to create a crisis task force for stakeholders directly involved on the ground. Of course, we are open to the government discussing this with the opposition parties because we have some ideas.
We are all fed up with the public health measures, but most of the measures that my colleague was talking about were put in the place by the provinces and Quebec. The federal government cannot remove lockdown restrictions it did not impose.
There are certainly discussions to be had. I agree with my colleague that everyone wants to know what is going to happen next and whether there is a plan. We understand that it is difficult for the government to know what the future holds. Will there be a new variant? Will the population be sufficiently protected?
However, we should have a plan to follow, like the Government of Quebec, which has a step-by-step reopening plan. If the federal government had a similar plan for the measures it is responsible for, that might make everyone feel better.
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, to me it looks like this crisis has everyone going around in circles.
People are going around in circles because, on the one hand, we have a government that has decided not to govern, not to assume its responsibilities, and now it is getting too late. On the other hand, we have an official opposition, the Conservatives, that has suddenly abandoned its traditional passion for law and order. Parking a 53-foot tractor trailer in the middle of the road is illegal.
Can my colleague tell me if maybe the desire for short-term political gain is exacerbating this conflict?
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
Yes, unfortunately a lot of people and organizations will exploit all this to achieve political gains and connect with a base they lost touch with early on, because everyone has had it up to here. We are all fed up, but one segment of the population likes to be more vocal about it than others.
I am looking forward to all elected representatives working together, setting an example and calling for unity and solidarity so we can get through this crisis.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
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.
Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint-Jean for her intervention today. I certainly learned a lot from what she had to say. I really appreciated the personal account she shared about interacting with some of the protesters. I think she makes a really good point, quite frankly, and I think I can learn something from it, such as the fact that there are many different people out there with many different objectives and motivations. Indeed, the member is absolutely right that there are people who have come to this protest quite innocently. I myself have seen families out there walking the streets. It is important to recognize that, and I thank her for that.
The problem for me was when I went to the drugstore and saw somebody confront the store clerk and put a camera in the clerk's face, saying, “You can't force me to wear a mask in here. I have rights”, and blah-blah. Where do we draw the line? How do we figure out how to appease the people who are legitimately not trying to create problems versus those who are overtly trying to do that? I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on that.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
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.