44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 9:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is certainly much from the speech by the Liberal member across the way that I would like to comment on, but there was one specific thing she said that really piqued my interest.
The member referenced that there would be commissions and inquiries related to the response to these blockades. I am glad to hear that. I wish that the Prime Minister had said that. I am pleased to hear that the government is willing to look into it.
If the Prime Minister's actions, and the actions of other members of the Liberal government, are found to have been inflammatory and to have played a role in what has been taking place, will the member accept the findings of those commissions and inquiries?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:59:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to stand in this chamber and address the issues that are impacting Canadians. However, I stand in this chamber tonight to speak to an issue that should make every one of the 338 members of the House take a moment to pause: the invocation of the Emergencies Act, an act passed in 1988, which was the successor to the War Measures Act.
If I could, I want to talk a bit about the history and why it is so important to understand that, in the context of where we are this evening. The War Measures Act was invoked three times in the history of this country: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis, under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I find it incredibly troubling that this is the context in which we find ourselves today. Wars and murdered politicians is the context for the debate that we find ourselves in here today.
The invocation of the War Measures Act was an extreme measure to deal with significant issues. I do not think there would be a member of this House who would not agree with the need for a mechanism like this to exist, because the reality is that there are instances where significant action needs to be taken. We see this Liberal Prime Minister invoking this Emergencies Act, taking and granting himself and his government unprecedented authority that includes significant things that suspend, for example, due process.
The members opposite do not necessarily like to consider the precedent of the decisions that they make. The precedent is being set by the invocation of this act that it is okay to suspend due process, a fundamental aspect of a modern democracy to ensure there are not things like unreasonable search and seizure. Although the members of the government talk about the Emergencies Act being subject to the charter, there are aspects of it that are allowed to be overridden because of what the Emergencies Act allows. It is important to acknowledge those things as we enter into this debate.
We see there is this seemingly flippant approach to such a serious issue, which is setting a precedent, that I would simply ask this question of the members opposite and members of the NDP who have indicated that they are going to support this: If this were former prime minister Stephen Harper who had invoked this act, would they be celebrating it? Would they be laughing in their seats? Would they be poking fun and seemingly enjoying the fact that they are taking away the right to due process and that they are suspending certain aspects of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is an important question that I hope every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the NDP considers carefully.
An unprecedented step was taken three weeks after the Prime Minister did nothing but inflame tensions in what is a time that Canada, I would submit, has never been more divided. The context for this is the fact that there are and continue to be protests taking place in the streets of Ottawa. The members opposite do not like to listen to this because it is inconvenient to their narrative, but I, along with my Conservative colleagues, have condemned the blockades, illegal activities and hateful imagery associated with it. The members opposite do not like that because it disrupts the divisive narrative that their leader continues to forward.
We have done that while also being the only party in this country that has been willing to actually acknowledge the fact that over the course of the last number of months there has been an unprecedented level of division that has alienated Canadians.
Now that is funny. The member opposite just said that we have somehow stoked these tensions. That member, I expect, when he goes to a Liberal caucus meeting next time around, would be quick to accuse—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
670 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:07:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the subject at hand, we have a Prime Minister that has torqued issues, dating back prior to the last election that he called, misleading Canadians time and time again.
We have the fact that the Liberals have put policies forward in this country that have alienated a group of Canadians who albeit are in stark disagreement with many of the members opposite and quite frankly the vast majority, if not all members, of the House. They have torqued those tensions to segment 10% or 15% of this country and called them names that, if those labels were applied to any other subsection of society, there would have been outrage.
That is the legacy of the Liberal government members. Time and time again, and we have seen it throughout the debate, they will accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing. That is what we are seeing across the aisle, time and time again.
I would submit that after three weeks of doing nothing except inflaming the tensions that exist across this country, including with the protests outside and including with some of the blockades that happened across this country, the Prime Minister did nothing for three weeks. He did absolutely nothing, yet when a poll came out that said only 16% of Canadians would vote for the Prime Minister, all of a sudden he went nuclear. He took out the sledgehammer.
Now he is somehow trying to justify it, when the reality is that any reasonable interpretation of the act, which has very clear guidelines for the conditions that need to be met for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, shows clearly they have not been met. We have heard a lot of that over the course of this evening.
In the last couple of minutes, there are a few things I would like to touch on. We have a Canada that is divided. That is the Liberal government's Canada. It is tragic, but it is true. I hear it every day. We have a Canada that has state-sanctioned discrimination. That is the Canada under the Liberal government. We have a Canada in which I hear members opposite continually joke about the fact that there are blue-collar workers that drive trucks that are somehow the scourge of society. That is Canada under the Liberal government.
It is unbelievable that we have come to this point. We need to take pause and think very carefully about the path forward. My challenge to all of those who would consider supporting the invocation or the continuation of the Emergencies Act would be this: Think about the precedent that has been set. Think about, if it was their political foe who was using similar logic under similar circumstances, would they be so quick to engage in this as their option as a path forward? Think about the labels that have been applied by their leader, and if that would be an acceptable way to lead this country.
Members of the NDP, members of the Liberals, they have a choice. The highest elected office in this land is that of the member of Parliament. Many Canadians do not actually realize that. Every member of this House has the opportunity to make their voice heard. When members, on what will be a vote likely Monday evening, have their chance to cast their vote, to stand in their place, let them think long and hard about the precedent they are setting with the invocation of this act, because we can stand up for democracy in the midst of what is an incredibly challenging time for our country.
607 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:11:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although the Green Party does not have official party status, it is a party that is represented in this place.
My answer to my colleague would be this. Does this crisis meet the precedent that she would wish to be set, not just for the current government to invoke the Emergencies Act but for any future government to do the same? Does the context in which we are having this debate meet that criteria? This is not about voting with or against Conservatives. This is about whether or not—
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:12:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from the Bloc. I am glad to hear that Bloc members will not be supporting this draconian measure as a response to what is a Liberal failure.
This is a political crisis. This is not a national crisis that justifies the invoking of the Emergencies Act. Rather, it is a political crisis that is the consequence of a Prime Minister who has failed time and time again. He has failed for six years. He has failed over the last three or four weeks. The unfortunate reality is that we have a country that is more divided than ever. This is the consequence of failure and I am appreciative that the Bloc will not be supporting these draconian measures—
129 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
