CHIDIAC – Poilievre has no regard for Canadian values of respectful dialogue
Pierre Poilievre in the heat of debate.
THE GREAT African American writer Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre raised some Canadians’ ire recently when the Speaker of the House, Greg Fergus, expelled him from the House of Commons for using non-parliamentary language. He called Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s drug policies “wacko.”
As an isolated incident, this would not be too concerning, especially since Trudeau’s behaviour was not significantly better. However, Poilievre’s disregard for Canadian values and tradition extends far beyond the House of Commons.
I am a progressive and have generally been represented by parliamentarians I would consider conservative. I have not had a problem with this. I have always found them congenial, helpful, and, at worst, willing to agree to disagree.
This is how our Canadian democracy functions. The person elected normally belongs to a particular political party and holds particular views, but they serve all residents of their constituency.
I live in Prince George, British Columbia. The constituencies in northern B.C. are geographically enormous, but two of them meet in Prince George. They have both been Conservative strongholds for decades. The two Members of Parliament, Bob Zimmer and Todd Doherty, share a downtown office. I have resided in both ridings and am on a first-name basis with both MPs. Their staff members, both in Prince George and Ottawa, have always treated me with the utmost respect.
The atmosphere in the local constituency office has changed significantly recently, and I don’t believe it is because of the current Israel-Palestine issue. Zimmer is extremely pro-Israel. I advocate for the human rights of all people in the region. We were still able to sit down over coffee and discuss the issue.
My dialogues with Doherty primarily involved advocating for Indigenous rights in Canada, and I found him to be very open-minded and collaborative. Since Poilievre has become the leader of the Conservative Party, staff members remain congenial, but both Doherty and Zimmer have become inaccessible.
Shortly after Israel began its assault on Gaza, there were numerous sit-ins at constituency offices across Canada. One can understand that MPs were concerned about the well-being of their staff members and briefly locked their offices.
Shortly after, a very kind and diverse group of people, primarily women, made up of a minister and other Christians, Muslims, agnostics, and even a former member of the Israeli Defense Force, began gathering weekly for what they called “knit-ins” at Doherty and Zimmer’s office in Prince George.
They not only shared information with their MPs regarding the crisis in Gaza, but they also shared their knitting and baking with the office staff. They were able to do this until the constituency office closed for the Christmas break.
In January, the “knit-in ladies” were locked out of the constituency office. They were given vague and unclear reasoning for this action. They were told that only those with appointments were allowed to enter, but when they tried to make appointments, their phone calls were not returned, or their requests were denied. Given the positive relationship that Zimmer and Doherty have built in the region, one has to wonder why there has been a change in attitude.
Was this a direct order from Pierre Poilievre?
Canadians cherish their parliamentary democracy. We value respectful dialogue, the right to protest, law and order, and our reputation on the international stage. It is becoming clear that Pierre Poilievre has no regard for these sacred institutions. He is showing us who he is; we need to believe him.
Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He is the recipient of an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
As individuals we all make mistakes and we own them. We can admit that we made a mistake, take ownership explain what we are doing to remedy the mistake but when one deflects responsibility and lies the lies should be exposed.
Joining any political party, becoming its MP like Doherty and Zimmer or a member of a bureaucracy the word “solidarity” forces you to protect the turf and the policy of your organization or political party and its caucus.
The people who formulate the policy are well aware of the truth but that takes the back seat to the political goal which is based on self-interest, which is gained with assuming power.
So, what is the big deal that Pierre Poilievre called “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s drug policies “wacko.”? Rather than debate the merits of Trudeau’s drug policy which PP called “wacko” Gerry Chidiac ignores the issues surrounding the drug policy and writes that Poilievre “disregards Canadian values and tradition” are somehow related to how the drug laws were implemented.
Gerry Chidiac then tells us how the atmosphere in the local Prince George constituency office has changed. Its no different then the local constituency office here in Kamloops. Neither Gerry Chidiac’s or my comment explains the reason for the office policy and why both Doherty and Zimmer have become inaccessible.
Could this be due to the fact that presently every major Canadian political party has disregarded our reputation on the international stage as an honest broker. This reputation no longer exists as our policy is vague on Human Rights, our living standards, our right to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech and democracy and it will be so until we have proportional representation.
LikeLike
This is a recent example of how Poilievre tells me as to the kind of person he is:
– BC gets the feds to pilot a drug decriminalization program, Feds say ok.
– BC discovers that it needs tweaking; drug users ingesting in hospitals and city parks etc. The populous is unhappy about the risks.
– BC asks the feds to change the pilot to recriminalize in hospitals, city parks etc.
– Feds agree. Everyone is watching closely, waiting for data.
Almost 2 weeks later, Poilievre TODAY visits BC and tells stories about drug users smoking crack in hospitals, as if nothing has been changed, and otherwise inflaming the issue to get the chance to say he would ‘cancel the pilot’. Zero mention of the updated policy.
This is when the accurate truth, gets in the way of the base stroking soundbite.
In other words, he relies on his base not watching or reading the news, but still swallowing whatever he says as truth, even in this case … and often when he speaks publicly … being untruthful, incomplete or bombastically pushing the rhetoric and hyperbole, sidestepping what is actually happening.
He was Harpers little Pitbull, back when he showed who he was … and he has grown into a Rottweiler … still the kind of dog you approach depending on the skill of the handler, but this guy doesnt have one. He will do whatever he has to to get his bite.
LikeLike
David, you asked:
“So, what is the big deal that Pierre Poilievre called “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s drug policies “wacko.”? Rather than debate the merits of Trudeau’s drug policy which PP called “wacko” Gerry Chidiac ignores the issues surrounding the drug policy and writes that Poilievre “disregards Canadian values and tradition” are somehow related to how the drug laws were implemented.”
The whole point of this article is to point out the lack of respectful dialogue in Parliament, coming from the leader of the opposition. “Wacko,” for example, has now become the latest slogan and meme. It is then fodder for more disrespectful commentary on social media.
Mr. Poilievre continues to foment outrage based on misinformation and outright lies. This shouldn’t be allowed to continue. He isn’t attempting to debate the merits of the policy.
What we should have is an effective opposition that challenges the government over its laws, policies and spending in a meaningful way, with respectful dialogue and provide alternatives. Provide fully costed policy alternatives that can be debated and discussed. This is rarely happening currently in Question Period and in public appearances and media scrums.
We need all politicians and especially party leaders to conduct themselves as model citizens that will lead by example with behaviour that increases engagement in the political process.
LikeLike