Justin Trudeau says people who chose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 must accept the consequences of those decisions, including job loss and restricted access to transportation and other services.
“It was his choice and no one would ever force anyone to do something they didn’t want to do,” the prime minister said in an interview with CBC Radio’s The House that aired Saturday.
“But there are consequences when you don’t. You can’t choose to put your co-workers at risk. You can’t choose to put people sitting next to you on a plane at risk,” Trudeau said before heading to international summits in Africa and Europe.
MIRAR | Trudeau speaks on CBC Radio’s The House about the Ottawa convoy protests
Trudeau speaks on CBC Radio’s The House about the Ottawa convoy protests
During an interview with The House host Chris Hall, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau answers a question about whether he made a mistake by saying that protesters who participated in the Ottawa Freedom Convoy had “unacceptable opinions.”
Federal vaccine mandates played an important role in last fall’s election campaign and proved to be a focus of public anger earlier this year that contributed to the occupation of downtown Ottawa and blockades at border crossings. of four provinces.
More protests are expected in the country’s capital over the long Canada Day weekend, although the federal government lifted most restrictions this week.
Trudeau spoke at length during the interview with The House about the riots, how his government responded and whether his own comments referring to protesters arriving in Ottawa as a “small marginal minority” who had “unacceptable opinions” contributed to anger.
“No. I will always shout unacceptable rhetoric and hateful language wherever I see it,” he said, insisting that his comments in January were never intended for doubts about the vaccine, but for those he believes were deliberately spreading misinformation and misinformation.
“Now, unfortunately, with … our modern world of social media and communications, this was picked up, combined and expanded. And I won’t start by saying that they took me out of context, but my point was that there there are people who are deliberately trying to provoke hatred, intolerance and misinformation, “he added.
“And we need to call on these people even as we continue to do our best to reach out thoughtfully and reasonably to people who have concerns or concerns and focus on alleviating those concerns and concerns.”
Trudeau to take divisive positions
There’s more than a little bit of Pierre Trudeau to Justin Trudeau the longer he’s in office. There are no public doubts and, increasingly, no regrets. Like his father, young Trudeau is not inclined to shrink in the face of a political fight, even because of his decision to invoke the Emergency Act.
The prime minister argued in the interview that the use of powers in the act did nothing to block freedom of expression or peaceful assembly. The line was drawn, he said, when the government became clear that it was an illegal occupation.
He compared his decision to end the protests, and the language he used to condemn those who advocated illegal actions, to the criticism of his decision that all liberal candidates should endorse the right to choose from women.
“Well, I was accused of being divisive in this because people who deeply believe in being anti-abortion were therefore excluded from my perspective on this,” she said.
“Every time you’re going to take a strong position, especially one that’s disputed in society, there will be people who feel you’re strong against them. And what you have to do every step as a leader. Is find out if it’s worth it. the penalty or not of splitting up to defend something you know is right, and whether it’s about women’s rights or people’s freedom to protect themselves during a pandemic. ”
MIRAR | Trudeau defends vaccine warrants, the Emergency Act in an interview with CBC Radio
Trudeau defends vaccine warrants, the Emergency Act in an interview with CBC Radio
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told CBC Radio presenter Chris Hall of the House that people who decided not to get vaccinated made a decision that had consequences.
Formal reviews of the reasons for the decision to invoke the Emergency Act for the first time are now underway. And as with the decision itself, these audiences are not without controversy or drama.
Public Security Minister Marco Mendicino told the parliamentary committee in April that the act was invoked on the advice of police. Since then, two other cabinet members, Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair, and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, have told the same committee that they have not listened to police recommendations for enacting the Emergency Act.
“I don’t know of any law enforcement recommendations,” Blair said.
Trudeau was asked who was right.
“We had a series of advice from the Justice Department. From Citizen Security. From various areas,” he said. “But if you think about the specific tools, one of the specific complaints was that tow truck drivers were unwilling to send their facilities at the expense of being discovered or harassed by these protesters.”
Was that what tipped the scales?
“Well, no … I said,‘ Okay. What are the tools to get tow truck drivers to do this? “And we saw that one of the only tools we had that would be effective in the time needed was to introduce the Emergency Act.”
Opposition MPs are calling for full access to the decision-making process before the event is called. But witnesses, including RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki and CSIS director David Vigneault, have told them they do not have the power to disclose their conversations or advice to the cabinet.
“I can’t talk specifically about any advice that was made in the cabinet,” Lucki told the committee last month when he was pressured if his force had suggested the act be implemented.
He also postponed when asked if status reports on what was happening would be published publicly, saying those reports belong to the government.
The prime minister told The House that the government would publish these status reports and what he called “the reality we were facing across the country”.
But demands that he relinquish the long-standing practice of maintaining cabinet confidentiality will not be met, he said, to ensure ministers have the confidence to speak freely on issues of national importance.