SoVote

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

Feb/17/22 10:58:27 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the convoy stated its mission was to overthrow the government. It sounds ludicrous, but it brazenly posted that on its website and it reiterated it— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

38 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/17/22 10:58:48 a.m.
Watch

Order, order. I cannot hear the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition cannot hear the question. The hon. member for Burnaby South.

26 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

Feb/17/22 10:58:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the goal of this convoy, posted brazenly on its website, reiterated as recently as earlier this week in a press conference, was to overthrow a democratically elected government. That was its goal. The interim leader of the Conservative Party says, “We have heard you and we will keep standing up for you.” Do you regret endorsing a convoy that is attacking the fundamental democracy of our country? Do you regret endorsing and supporting an occupation that is harassing citizens? Do you regret endorsing a movement that has lost— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

103 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/17/22 10:59:38 a.m.
Watch

Order, order. I know the questions have to come through the Chair, and I cannot speak on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. I will let the Leader of the Opposition answer the question.

35 words

Noise/conversations/heckling, interrupting Member speaking

Hon. Candice Bergen

Feb/17/22 10:59:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously nobody in this House believes that a government should be overthrown, although I have seen that member's colleagues at a number of pro-communist marches, so I am not sure if that means he endorses communism. In fact, I will tell the House what I know. When history looks back on this, Conservatives will have stood up with Canadians, millions of Canadians, vaccinated Canadians, Canadians who are blue-collar workers, Canadians who are white-collar workers, Canadians who have had enough of a Prime Minister who has divided, wedged, stigmatized and traumatized them, and the party that will have stood with the Prime Minister is that member and his NDP colleagues. It is shameful.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/17/22 11:00:43 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to stand in the House today and talk about inflation. I would prefer to stand in the House today to defend the mothers, fathers and seniors who have suffered so much since the beginning of the pandemic and who are facing all sorts of really difficult situations. However, because of this Prime Minister's inaction, because he chose to protect his career rather than listen to Canadians, we are here today discussing a law that is being invoked by Parliament and the Prime Minister for the very first time since its enactment in 1988: the Emergencies Act. This day will go down in history, but not for the right reasons. It is very disappointing. The Prime Minister says he is invoking the act to manage the blockades and protests happening in downtown Ottawa, at the border crossings in Coutts, Alberta, and Emerson, Manitoba, and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. He said it again this morning. I would like to point out to my colleagues that we must take these precedents into account. The weight of these events calls for prudence on our part. However, only the blockades in Ottawa remain. All of the other blockades ended or were ended without the need for the Emergencies Act. For 15 days, the Prime Minister took no real action to defuse the protests. He did not listen to the discontent, fatigue and demands being expressed by the protesters and Canadians. He preferred to take extreme measures as a first resort. In short, the Prime Minister failed to meet the high threshold provided for in the Emergencies Act to justify its invocation and application. For that reason, the Conservatives will be voting against his decision. Invoking the Emergencies Act is one of the most important decisions a member of Parliament can make. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times: World War I, World War II and the October Crisis, which Quebeckers remember all too well. It is our prime responsibility as parliamentarians to protect our democracy. This includes Canadians' right to elect their representatives, the right to disagree with the government, and the right to express that disagreement publicly. We know that these protests are causing problems for many Canadians, especially residents of Ottawa and local businesses. It is extremely hard for them. They are the collateral damage of a situation that extends far beyond the streets and people of Ottawa. We acknowledge that. As we have often said, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. The illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. It is time to de-escalate the situation, not only in Ottawa, but across the country. Unfortunately, as many experts and analysts have said, the Prime Minister's actions could have the complete opposite effect. Let us start at the beginning. How did these events start? They started when the Prime Minister decided to politicize an election, to trigger an election in the middle of a pandemic, and then decided to force truckers to get vaccinated when there is no scientific proof that it was the right thing to do. We put the question to the government. We asked the Minister of Health on what expert testimony he was basing his decision to force truckers to get vaccinated. The government consistently avoided the question. It never answered, but it did not back down. It kept the rqeuirement in place, despite all the problems it was causing for our economy and supply chains, and despite the size of the movement it created. When the protesters arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister went into hiding for a week and, when he came out, he did not attempt to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he insulted the protesters and Canadians who did not agree with him. That is what happened. The Prime Minister called them racists and misogynists. He even said that their point of view was unacceptable. That happens often in the House. Every time somebody says something the Prime Minister does not entirely agree with, it is instantly clear that he finds it unacceptable. As far as I know, more than half of Canadians did not vote for him in the last election. However, they are still Canadians, and they are entitled to their opinion. They are Canadians who expressed their views and still have the right to do so. Voting against the Prime Minister is acceptable. I have heard opinions from everywhere, in my riding, on social media, over the phone and in emails. We received a lot of emails this week. The people expressing their views are our neighbours, our constituents. They are Canadians who want to make their voices heard and who should be able to do so. However, since the Prime Minister does not agree with them and does not like their opinion, he simply decided not to listen to them. The Prime Minister stigmatizes and divides Canadians every chance he gets. We know that he refused to meet with any of the truckers or their representatives. He did not discuss their concerns with them. He did not even apologize for the insults he hurled at all the protesters outside and right here in the House. Apologies are not for people who do not agree with him. He ignored what people have to say and waited for the crisis to get worse and worse and worse. He could have done something. He had plenty of tools at his disposal. The first tool is himself. As Prime Minister and head of state, he could have listened to Canadians. The first tool he could have used is himself as head of state. He chose to act like a petty politician. Instead of listening, he chose to give himself more power, to expand the government's powers. That was a bad decision. The Prime Minister's leadership in this case has been deplorable. This week, he even said, and I quote: “Invoking the act is never the first thing a government should do, nor the second. The act is to be used sparingly and as a last resort.” No one thinks that the Prime Minister used even the first, second, third or fourth options. He has not convinced anyone of the need to invoke the Emergencies Act when almost every expert, analyst and police chief said that they had all the tools they needed. The provincial premiers said the same thing more than once. They said that they were able to manage the situation and asked the federal government not to throw fuel on the fire by invoking the Emergencies Act. That is what happened. How did the Prime Minister go from totally ignoring the protesters directly to invoking the Emergencies Act? We hope that history will tell, because the Prime Minister and his ministers will not, and, unfortunately, the current crisis was the direct result of the Prime Minister’s lack of leadership. The Conservatives proposed an option, a reasonable approach. We asked the Prime Minister to present a plan to announce the lifting of the vaccine mandates, a plan to end the health measures. That was not unreasonable. All of the provinces, all of the other governments in Canada are doing that. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister dug in and chose to do nothing, to ignore his experts. He should not be surprised to learn today that the protesters and Canadians are fed up with his lack of leadership. That is the reality we find ourselves in today. The Prime Minister prefers to do whatever he wants and continues to refuse to present a plan. The government should not have the power to close Canadians’ bank accounts. The government should not have to invoke the Emergencies Act when there are other tools to resolve situations like the one that exists in Ottawa right now. The Prime Minister failed. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister will be judged, not by us, but by generations of Canadians to come.

1333 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 11:11:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to talk about leadership. However, his party is trying to both support and condemn the illegal blockades. The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex suggested that the Prime Minister should show leadership and give the illegal protesters everything they want. What measures should the government have taken? Should the government simply give in to the demands of the illegal protesters?

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Feb/17/22 11:11:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, the official opposition is the official opposition. This Prime Minister had the tools to work with the provinces and send additional police officers in response to the City of Ottawa's request when the City of Ottawa made that request. Ministers could have intervened, but they did not. The question the member is asking the official opposition would perhaps best be put to his own Prime Minister. Why did he do absolutely nothing at the beginning of this crisis? Why did he let things get this bad? That is the question. The lack of leadership is not on our side, it is on that side.

114 words

All Topics

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/17/22 11:12:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that makes me really mad. When the Prime Minister said he was going to invoke the Emergencies Act, he said it would be geographically targeted and the government would intervene only where justified. The Premier of Quebec made it clear that his government does not want the Emergencies Act applied on its territory. The National Assembly unanimously stated the same. According to the text of the order, however, it applies across Canada. This is not the first time the Prime Minister has said one thing and done the opposite. Earlier, he said the scope of the act is reasonable and proportionate. Does my colleague agree that it is actually unjustified and unjustifiable?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Feb/17/22 11:13:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec has said that invoking the Emergencies Act could add fuel to the fire by further polarizing the population. He made it clear to the Prime Minister that the act should not apply to Quebec. He does not think we need it. He does not see how it would improve the social climate at this time. I can also reference the premiers of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Alberta. The premiers sent a clear message to the Prime Minister that they do not want his Emergencies Act and are capable of managing their own affairs in their provinces. Why is the Prime Minister not capable of doing the same?

114 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/17/22 11:14:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point that I have heard the hon. member's leader, the official leader of the opposition, raise as a hypothetical, and I want to address it now. It is the notion that the Prime Minister “hid”. I am not going to defend all of the Prime Minister's actions by any means, but at the moment this convoy started, the Prime Minister had been diagnosed positive with COVID. I think we forget that if the Prime Minister had gone to meet with people who were unvaccinated and had any of them sickened and died, he could have been charged with manslaughter. Does that occur to people on the other side as— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

125 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/17/22 11:14:55 a.m.
Watch

Order. I would like to hear the member's question. Has the member completed her question? I just want to make sure everybody listens to the question so that we can get a good answer.

35 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Feb/17/22 11:15:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a difficult time for everyone, but I think that this hypothetical and the use of the word "hid" is, again, inflaming divisions that we should not have in this place. If someone tests positive for COVID, they should not be meeting with anyone and they certainly should not be threatening the health and safety of people who have chosen not to get vaccinated.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Feb/17/22 11:15:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since the pandemic began, I have had the opportunity on countless occasions to listen to speeches and presentations from my hon. colleague using a little tool called Zoom, on a little computer. I have heard the member defend the Liberal government several times on this little screen. Hiding means not answering questions. It means refusing to take a stand. That is what the Prime Minister did by hiding. He hid from his responsibilities. He did not hide at home; he hid from his responsibilities. He could have spoken out. He had every opportunity to do so.

98 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/17/22 11:16:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would begin by reminding our friends across the aisle that we are in the middle of a pandemic and our friends to our right that I would like to hear myself speak. The pandemic has claimed victims. Some have died, while others are struggling with very serious health problems. Some people are living in a state of anxiety. Some people saw their purchasing power markedly decline because of the inflationary impact of the pandemic, whether it be permanent or temporary, structural or cyclical. Seniors were hit hard by the pandemic, as were the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces. Of course, handling unusual and unprecedented situations sometimes involves trial and error. We try things that do not immediately work, and sometimes this approach, these trials and errors, can sow doubt. I understand. That is the case for the health restrictions, for the health measures around vaccination and the regulations that required, as well as for the travel restrictions. That is reasonable and understandable. The answer to all this is, and should always be, information, even if that does not always work and the dissemination of good information remains relative. Unfortunately, the management of the pandemic was undermined by the federal government’s obsession with taking over Quebec’s and the provinces’ powers, imposing conditions outside its jurisdiction, and even subjecting the pandemic to multicultural values. All of this does make things more difficult to understand. It creates confusion among Quebeckers and Canadians when what we need is quality information. It is also what led to the opposition that emerged in the forms we have been seeing in recent weeks. Fear, doubt and opposition to a government’s ideas and policies are legitimate. Protesting to express them is legitimate. Sedition and insurrection are not legitimate. Is refusing treatment legitimate? Is endangering other people’s lives by refusing treatment or vaccination legitimate? Yesterday, I voluntarily went for my third shot. I was free to do so, and in so doing I was protecting and helping bring back freedom for other, more fragile, people, especially those in seniors residences, who are awaiting the day when they can feel safe enough to leave the house. Freedom requires striking a balance between individual and collective freedoms. Doing this requires judgment, and that is not currently on display in all parties. Freedom is a test of leadership, the test of freedom. The Prime Minister failed this test because of ideology. He sought to subjugate collective and individual freedoms, to crush the identity of a nation under that of all nations, to deny the nation and talk of a postnational state. He is continuing the work of his father. He is denying Quebec, he is completing the transformative work of trivializing the Quebec nation. Speaking of freedom, that was the purpose of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the charter of individual rights, the charter that denies French, secularism and the freedom of education, the one that seeks to censor social networks. Though they are an alarming cesspool of profanity these days, they remain a place of free expression, except for hate propaganda. The charter denies collective rights, the collective identity and the nation. Naturally, the Prime Minister stands up for individuals and then he drops the ball. Freedom is becoming “freedumb”. Driven by fear, doubt and insufficient information, freedom is taking on the appearance of right-wing extremism, which condones anything in excess, encourages civil disobedience, flirts with violence and pollutes social media—and yet the Prime Minister continues to drag his feet. It is in his nature to actively do nothing in times of crisis. It is part of his ideology to show contempt for differences and fan the flames of division. He just does not get it. Ottawa is under siege. The flag of Prime Minister's country is now being associated with the worst of the worst. He needs to take action, but, as usual, he does not know how, so he pretends to take action. He puts on a show. He deflects people's attention, covers up his failures, and moves a motion that is as heavy-handed as it is useless, a thinly disguised version of the War Measures Act. Thank heavens, it is a watered-down version of the original. The Prime Minister keeps repeating that the charter freedoms are not being infringed upon. If the Emergencies Act did not infringe on any freedoms, it would not exist. By its very nature, it infringes on freedoms. The Prime Minister's role is not to deny that the act infringes on freedoms but to justify it and explain why it is being used. The Emergencies Act was not needed for the Ambassador Bridge, not needed for the border in Coutts, not needed for the seizure of weapons in Coutts, and not needed in Quebec. Ironically, Quebec does not want the Emergencies Act enforced on its territory, but the Sûreté du Québec has been called in for backup in Ottawa. They should put that in their pipe and smoke it. The Prime Minister is saying that the act will be enforced geographically, but that is not how it works. He can say it as much as he wants, but that is not how it works. This is a Canadian act, in keeping with Canadian tradition. As with other traditions, the copy is always a poor imitation of the original. The Quebec National Assembly wants nothing to do with this act, nor does the Government of Quebec. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour. Conservatives in Quebec are not in favour, either. I am meeting with the NDP leader this afternoon to discuss. Could there be some way for us to come to an understanding? Only the Ottawa Liberals want it, because the ones from Quebec do not. If Ontario wants this act, that does not make it useful. This could all have been done differently, but that falls on them. Quebec obviously wants nothing to do with it. The Prime Minister has failed the test of collective freedom. On this, he has a sorry record. He often fails the test of freedom. He abandoned Raif Badawi. He has ignored the Uighurs. He is complicit with Spain against Catalonia. He sneers at Quebec's linguistic aspirations. He sneers at Quebec's secular aspirations. He sneers at freedom of expression and education if it is not in line with what he thinks and says. He starves provinces that do not meet his conditions with respect to health care. Even in security matters, the Prime Minister acts first and foremost by interfering, by grabbing powers that do not belong to him and by intervening in ways that, despite what he says, are not warranted as things now stand. All of Canada, except for the crisis in Ottawa that he himself engineered, sees this. He has failed the test of freedom of expression, because he has yielded the word “freedom” to his worst enemies: the far right and, more importantly, ignorance. Freedom is a progressive value; freedom is a national value; freedom is a Quebec value; freedom thrives on truth. Vaccination is a tool of freedom. It is imperfect, of course, but it remains the least bad solution. The sooner we accept it, the sooner all the health measures can be lifted. Worse, by his failure, he has abandoned the sick to manage a crisis that is completely of his own making. As for me, I will always defend freedom, especially the freedom of my nation. Quebec is free to make its own choices.

1284 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 11:27:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois compared a public emergency order to the War Measures Act, which is not the case. His public safety critic suggested that this measure takes away the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is not the case. This order merely gives police and provincial authorities additional powers to do their jobs, which includes tracking financial contributions to illegal activities, including in Quebec, that cause economic damage. Normally, the Bloc likes the idea of provincial discretion. Why is it now against a reasonable and proportional measure for its province?

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Feb/17/22 11:28:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between offering additional powers to other police forces and taking powers away from other levels of government so they can be handed over to one's own police force. Once again, the government is performing some gymnastic manoeuvres with a few extra twists, which would outdo any figure skating routine in Beijing. When measures are necessary, are appropriate, and restrict freedoms, the government should explain and justify them, rather than claim that they do not restrict those freedoms. Whether these actions are justified or not, the government is claiming that seizing someone's bank account or preventing someone from walking down a particular street does not restrict their freedoms. There are things that are obvious, but this government is a master of claiming the opposite of what is obvious and repeating it among its members.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Feb/17/22 11:29:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the Bloc Québécois what he thinks about the differences between what the act allows and the capacity and resources on the ground. We can see that the major problem in Ottawa right now is the ability to remove tractor trailers from the streets. Is my colleague aware that section 129 of the Criminal Code compels transportation companies to provide resources to the police when requested? Again, are there too many differences between what the act allows and the available resources and capacity?

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Feb/17/22 11:30:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is illegal to stop a heavy truck on the white line in the middle of the street, except for about a minute and a half when the light is red. These protesters gave notice in advance that this was their intention, and they were allowed to come anyway. The Ottawa police got a little worried and requested assistance, which they were not given. They were told that 275 RCMP officers were going to be sent in, but that they would be reserved for Parliament and the Prime Minister, who was beginning to find it difficult to get around and was less inclined to come to Parliament. The Prime Minister himself said that the Ottawa police had all the necessary powers to intervene, until he realized that what he was saying did not make sense. In every province, each level of government has police forces and state of emergency legislation that provide all the necessary tools. We need to stop saying that the current situation cannot be resolved without the use of the Emergencies Act. This scares people into calling for the act to be invoked. The provinces could, and can, intervene, as has been seen everywhere except here around Parliament.

203 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/17/22 11:31:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois. I would like to ask him a question because I am worried about the enforcement of emergency measures and the related geographic issues. In the order before us, there is no clear mention of a geographic region. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the other ministers stated that the use of the Emergencies Act would have a geographic limit, but I do not see it here. If the government changed the order to include geographic limits that did not comprise the Province of Quebec, might the leader of the Bloc Québécois think that it is needed to resolve the situation here in Ottawa?

121 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 33