SoVote

Feb/17/22 8:51:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions there. To begin with, a poll is a poll. It is talked about, negotiated, studied and disputed. We did not analyze the details of the methodology. The important thing to look at is the question being asked. I am sure Quebeckers agree that the act should apply in Ontario or other places where it is needed, but the act does not say that. In its current form, the order will apply everywhere. That is what I tell Quebeckers. I tell them that the National Assembly is 100% the legitimate legislature of Quebeckers. That is where their representatives are. Every political party, regardless of its political affiliation, says so. It is clear, simple and precise. There is no debate. In fact, a vote in the House is a lot more scientific than a poll. Let us be clear about that. We have taken a lot of time to explain that. We are asking the government to take action, but it seems that the members opposite are unable to take action without interfering. As soon as we tell them to take action, it is as though all courses of action are equal. That is not what we are saying. For example, the government could have provided the City of Ottawa with the resources it was asking for. It could have done many things. One thing is for sure. I have explained it many times. I spent 20 minutes explaining it. I even explained it in response to some questions. There is a difference between actions taken in accordance with existing legislation and actions taken in accordance with special legislation. The real problem here is that the existing legislation was not used, yet the government invoked special legislation.

293 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/17/22 8:53:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a question on policing. Some members tonight have talked about a slight inconvenience and annoyances, but others have spoken about the fear in the community. As we have all seen, the police have not been able to address crime and have not been able to enforce bylaws for municipal-level infractions. I wonder if the member could tell us why he thinks policing has not been enforced in this situation in Ottawa.

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Feb/17/22 8:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, from what I saw, the police in Quebec City managed to enforce the law. They managed to enforce the law at the Ambassador Bridge and in Alberta, when they arrested people who had weapons. There are several examples of where the law was enforced. There has been a serious management and leadership problem in the very region we are in right now. It is as simple as that.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/17/22 8:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a historic and unprecedented situation facing our country. For the first time since its passage in 1988, the Emergencies Act is being invoked by the Prime Minister. The law outlines a type of situation that would merit its invocation. It notes that it must only be used during an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency. While it is the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the act, it is the duty of members of the House who have been placed here to either reject it or ratify it and ensure, if the measures are taken, that they are justifiable and appropriate. The act enumerates four circumstances that would justify the use of its powers. Let me outline those emergencies described in the act, and hold the circumstances of the current standoff up against these provisions, to see if today's situation meets any of these criteria. Criteria one involves espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada, or such activities directed toward and in support of such espionage and sabotage. I have seen no clear evidence that blockades have been infiltrated by spies or other acts of espionage, nor has the government brought any such evidence forward to the House. Criteria two involves foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person. The Prime Minister has alluded to foreign funding by individuals, however it remains unclear how this is detrimental to the interest of Canadians. There is no foreign country that is financing or otherwise supporting the blockades financially, and that is the test. If the Prime Minister believes it is a foreign government funding this, then he has an obligation to share that with the House. Criteria three involves activities within or relating to Canada, directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or properties for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological objectives within Canada or a foreign state. There has been no concerted, violent effort made by any members of the blockade. In fact, we saw mostly peaceful removal of the protesters on the Ambassador Bridge. Isolated acts of violence do not equate to full-blown acts of violence that are aimed at achieving political objectives. Criteria four involves activities directed toward undermining, by covert, unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada. Every day I have been walking to my office and to the House of Commons, like all MPs, unimpeded by protesters. To be sure, they have effectively blocked several streets, created a lot of noise and made life more difficult for those of us living downtown. Well, what has happened in downtown Ottawa in the last three weeks is nothing remotely close to the violent overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada. The Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act explicitly prohibits the use of these kinds of powers on lawful protests or dissent. If the present circumstances do not warrant using the act for the first time, they absolutely pale in comparison to the previous times the act's predecessor was invoked. I was a legislative assistant to the government that created this act to replace the War Measures Act to prevent the suspension of charter rights and government overreach. Through our long history, there are only three other times this has happened, during the two world wars and during the October Crisis, when there was an armed insurrection and a diplomat and a politician were kidnapped. Pierre Laporte was murdered and bombs were set off in Quebec. It was a horrible experience and, even still, some called it overreach. Does a traffic jam on the street in front of Parliament Hill merit the same type of response as those three incidences? Of course not. The act must only be used as a last resort. That is what the Prime Minister said. If this measure is his last resort, what were his plans A, B and C, because we did not see them. Did he make himself available to meet with the delegation of protesters to hear them out? Of course not. Did he dispatch a delegation of his ministers to meet with them, any key caucus members or senior officials other than the RCMP? Of course not. The government's report to Parliament on the Emergencies Act consultations confirms this. There are 58 engagements on that list. I searched through the details of the 58 engagements. Did I find a reference to one government official, one minister or the Prime Minister meeting with Canadians on this? No, I did not. The government and the Prime Minister had meetings with themselves, not with Canadians. They went from sitting on their duffs in unproductive meetings to implementing the most heavy-handed act available to government. The Prime Minister said he did not take it lightly, but the evidence in his own documents shows otherwise. The government does not need the Emergencies Act to arrest illegal protesters. This is done often, just ask the Minister of Environment. Cutting off the funding of an illegal activity does not require the Emergencies Act. The proceeds of crime legislation deals with that. The deputy director of FINTRAC, in a statement before a parliamentary committee, said that there is no evidence of foreign extremist financing behind these demonstrations. There is no need then for the Emergencies Act to stop foreign funding. For 21 days, the federal government has had the regular legislative tools to deal with the Ottawa protests, but it has not used them. It has not stopped one jerry can of fuel, one hot tub or one barbecue propane container from being carried through the protest right by the police. Meanwhile, provincial governments in Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. used standard policing tools to dispense with the protests. Days before the convoy had even arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister was stigmatizing and vilifying the participants. He called them racists and misogynists, a fringe minority that holds unacceptable views. This is how the Prime Minister operates. He divides, stigmatizes and drives wedges between himself and those who do not agree with him, and he does it for the most naked of political reasons. He thinks it makes for good politics for himself and the Liberal Party, and that it goes over well with his base. This is not a prime minister for all of Canada or all Canadians. This is a very selective prime minister, one who picks and chooses his causes based on the degree to which they further his vain, glorious self-image or the interests of the Liberal Party. Not long ago, the Prime Minister calculated that it would be in his interest to opine on the agriculture reforms that were being proposed by the Government of India, the world's largest democracy and a fellow member of the Commonwealth. In the ensuing diplomatic spat that resulted from his unsolicited and righteous remarks, the Prime Minister justified his intervention in the domestic affairs of the world's largest democracy by saying, and I know the government is listening, “Canada will always stand up for the right of peaceful protest anywhere around the world”, except apparently at home. The Prime Minister passionately supports the principles of free speech and peaceful protest. It is just the practice of free speech and peaceful protests that he opposes, especially at home in front of the symbol of free speech and democracy, Parliament Hill. Conservatives sympathize with those Canadians who have been affected by the blockades. Critical trade links were halted, but have now been restored, and many small businesses have had to shut their doors in light of the protests. The protesters here in Ottawa brought a message and that message has been heard. The Conservatives have heard them. We will stand up for them and for all Canadians who want to get back to normal life. We will not stop until the mandates are ended. Canadians have sacrificed so much. We all know that. Every member of Parliament has heard and seen first-hand the sacrifices. However, in a country more divided than ever, the Prime Minister has decided to purposely politicize the pandemic for his own gain.

1430 words

All Topics

Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 9:05:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member's remarks, I felt like we were living in two different worlds. It is not lost on me that he kept talking about these peaceful protests that ended quietly and through dialogue. I saw the news, and in Coutts, Alberta, they ended because there was a huge cache of weapons. That is something that is quite concerning to all Canadians. He was talking about the premiers who could do this without emergency powers. In Ontario, they actually enacted—

88 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

Feb/17/22 9:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18 are being violated. I cannot hear the minister trying to ask a question because of the heckling from the people she is trying to ask the question of.

44 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 9:06:08 p.m.
Watch

I have stopped the clock. I will allow the minister to ask her question again, and I do ask members, that if they have other questions and comments, to wait until it is their turn. I am sure the member for South Shore—St. Margarets can answer without the help of his colleagues. The hon. minister.

57 words

Hon. Karina Gould

Feb/17/22 9:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I always appreciate the comments, I do appreciate the opportunity to ask this question. The member was talking about premiers who were able to do this without emergency measures, but in Ontario last Friday, the premier actually brought forward a state of emergency, which comes with extraordinary powers. They were then very supportive of the federal government bringing this forward because of the extraordinary damage to our economy and the security of Canadians at border points, as well as right here in Ottawa. What I hear from the members opposite is a complete disregard for the safety of people in Ottawa. When will the member recognize that people are unsafe and they are scared? It is our job, as parliamentarians, to protect them.

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/17/22 9:07:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister. We do live in two worlds. Your world, where you watch the CBC to find out what is happening—

27 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 9:07:25 p.m.
Watch

Please address comments through the Chair. The hon. member.

9 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/17/22 9:07:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the minister and the government watch CBC to get all their news. In our world, we actually go and talk to people. We go to the protests at the borders, where the people are, to find out what they are saying to try to represent them in Parliament. We do not just sit in West Block talking to each other in those ineffective meetings, which always happen on the government's side and that produce absolutely nothing. The government went from zero initiatives to the most draconian piece of legislation that exists in this country, and—

99 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 9:08:05 p.m.
Watch

I do want to get to more questions and comments. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

17 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/17/22 9:08:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my colleagues since this morning because this is an extremely important issue. What I am hearing does not make sense. It is like a book without a cover or anything written inside. Some people think everything is sombre and sad, but others are living in a magical land of unicorns. Where is the middle ground? Could my colleague tell me what measures should have been taken sooner, based on that middle ground?

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/17/22 9:08:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister should have actually enforced the existing laws and tools he has before him without using the act. I am hearing from members opposite that it is not his job. That is the problem with the government. Nothing is its job. Whether it is inflation or this crisis, it is always somebody else's fault. My colleague from Nova Scotia, who I respect a lot, has also said that it is not our problem, that we did not create the economic crisis we are in. I am sorry, but you did. That is your excuse for everything in this House.

106 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 9:09:34 p.m.
Watch

I would like to remind the member he is not to use the word “you”. That would prevent me from having to get up so often to redirect him. The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

39 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/17/22 9:09:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I heard some words around this House today saying that people are not talking to constituents, that people are not talking to workers, and that members of Parliament are not talking to their communities. I just want to say that we are. What I am hearing is that people have been traumatized by this. I wanted to ask something of the Conservative Party and the member who says they will stand up for the occupiers. Will they endorse illegal occupations going forward, or is it just this one they are supporting?

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/17/22 9:10:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think I said that. What I said is that we will stand up for ending the mandates. In her relationship with the Liberals and supporting bringing in a reduction in people's freedoms, I would pose a question to her. Why is she not listening to the people she is hearing from who are complaining about wanting these mandates reduced and relieved? Provinces are doing it. Provinces out west are doing it. All kinds of provinces are doing it. The government is ignoring and continues to ignore the needs of Canadians who want to get back to a normal life. It is putting its own political agenda ahead of everybody in order to try to wedge and divide us.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Feb/17/22 9:11:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be speaking to this bill. Actually, I would rather not be speaking to this bill and these measures. I do not think it is necessary and is a total overreach of the government for political expediency. It is inappropriate and very selective. That will probably be the nature of my comments tonight. First of all, I want to thank all the staff here this evening: the table officers, interpreters, food services and maintenance. We appreciate what they do for us in these late hours of the night. The cafeteria workers are here half an hour later than we finish tonight, so I thank them. I also want to thank the Parliamentary Protective Service, which has had long hours on the Hill for the past three weeks in order to keep order. Its members have been having a lot of polite conversations with the protestors and approaching them with a calm, professional demeanour. If the Liberal government would have had the same approach, I cannot help but wonder if the situation would be where it is today. As a matter of fact, I am sure it would not be. The government made absolutely no effort to reach out. It is not just in the past three weeks. This is the approach it has had over the years, during and before the pandemic. I cannot think of a single time the Prime Minister or any member of the cabinet have even taken a minute to voice any degree of willingness to listen to the Canadians who disagree with the measures the government has taken to promote the exclusion of Canadians based on vaccination status. The Prime Minister and many other Liberal caucus members try to paint anyone not fully vaccinated or not supportive of exclusionary mandates as enemies, questioning whether they should be tolerated. This is Canada we are talking about. We are known for our tolerance. We are known for our multiculturalism, yet this is the type of approach the government is taking constantly. It is its mode of operation. Last year, when 50 churches were burned down, the Prime Minister said: One of my reflections is I understand the anger that’s out there against...institutions like the Catholic church. It is real and it is fully understandable. The shameful history that we are all becoming more and more aware of and engaging ourselves to do better as Canadians. Those are such pious words. It is wrong. The burning of churches, for the Prime Minister and the Liberal government, is understandable, but there is no desire to show concern for those protesting now. He told several church leaders that evangelical Christians were the worst part of Canadian society. An hon. member: What are you talking about? Mr. Marc Dalton: Yes, exclusionary tolerance is what I am speaking about. I am talking about 3%—

481 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 9:15:07 p.m.
Watch

Order, please. I just ruled on this a few minutes ago for the minister, and now the minister is doing exactly what I asked somebody not to do. I know the ministers want to ensure they are role models in the House. I ask them to hold their discussions and thoughts until the appropriate time. I would also ask opposition members not to engage in discussions, especially when I am speaking. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

82 words

Mr. Marc Dalton

Feb/17/22 9:15:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer questions afterward. I think of something that the Prime Minister once said regarding exclusion and intolerance. He spoke about an event that killed several people and wounded hundreds, many of them losing arms and legs. He said, “But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded.... And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?” Who was he speaking about? It was the Boston marathon bombers, not the families and others here in front of us. That is his approach to those he might identify with and he is excluding many others. It is shameful. It is divisive. Why now has he no willingness to understand where these tensions come from? It is because he knows the answer to the question of why there are these tensions and problems is in the mirror. He just has to look in the mirror. Does the Prime Minister think that calling anyone who is not fully vaccinated or is against his exclusionary mandates a bigot or a racist is a way to help relieve tensions? No, it is not. Does asking if their very existence should be tolerated help relieve tension? Of course it does not. What it does do is drive wedges through the population and the Liberals are masters at using wedges. That is their way to win elections: using wedges. They do not care if they divide Canada. Shame on the current government. That is what the Prime Minister and his colleagues like to do. For them it is a great electoral strategy. All this is an electoral strategy. Do not just ask me. Ask the members of the Liberal Party. It is obvious from this side, as well as to different members on that side within their benches. They cater to 35% approximately maybe out of Toronto, Montreal and downtown Vancouver because they expect to win the election with that if they expand it a bit. They do not care what they are doing to Canada. They do not care that they exclude most of Alberta, Saskatchewan and rural parts of Canada. They believe the Conservatives are Nazis. As long as they get 35% and can sit on that side they do not care what happens to Canada. Do they care? I do not think so. It is ridiculous. Honestly, principle is a lot more important than just winning elections. They dismiss other parties. They are obsessed with poll numbers. I understand polling is important. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

430 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 33