44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 12:17:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been here for much of the last three weeks, and what I have seen in Ottawa is a complete failure of civic officials and a complete failure of the police. This should never have been allowed to spiral. In Quebec City and Toronto, we saw that the police did their job. At the Ambassador Bridge, we saw the ridiculous situation of our bridge being shut down for eight days without action.
Now we are having to take these measures. The minister is talking about anti-terrorism measures. Is the government able to tell the House that it has evidence that there is terrorism and extremism that can justify this measure, or do we just have to clean up the mess from the failure of what happened here in Ottawa?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:17:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, delivered with his usual passion in this important circumstance.
I mentioned terrorism as part of the financing. This is not a terrorism act. We took measures that had been applied to terrorism and applied them to other illegal activity, but I am not equating this to terrorism. What we have done is declare a public order emergency based on the reasons we gave in the declaration that we have made. They include the very deleterious economic impact to the kinds of workers that the hon. member has tried to protect throughout his whole career. We could think of auto workers in southwestern Ontario or Niagara or beef farmers or pork farmers out west whose supply chains were blocked in trading with our largest trading partner.
We have declared a public order emergency based on those very serious grounds. We needed to act. We had been there from the beginning and we saw gaps. We filled them. Now we have given better tools to the police.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:19:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to rise today as the Minister of Emergency Preparedness to speak to the importance and necessity of the motion before the House.
Let me also acknowledge that the fact we are all in this House, that elected representatives from across Canada have come to debate this important measure, is evidence of the strength and resiliency of our democratic institutions. Although the subject of today's debate is a solemn one, I think it is also evidence that should give us strength, resolve and hope.
Let me begin my remarks by acknowledging the impact that these blockades and demonstrations have had on Canadian citizens, particularly the people of Ottawa who have been subject to intimidation and threats. The disruption of the course of their lives is, frankly, unacceptable.
Among the most important freedoms that we covet and protect in this country are freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, lawful peaceful protest. It has also been said that one's freedom to swing their fists ends at the end of another's nose. What we have seen, unfortunately, over the past three weeks is that those rights have been exceeded and abused to the point that it has put Canadians in harm's way.
I also want to speak briefly about the impact of the blockades that were taking place at vital trade corridors in this country, our international borders. When the protesters decided to go to our borders, we need to recognize and acknowledge they were going for the throat. They were going to cut off the supply of goods and services that our country relies on.
When they stopped parts from coming across that border at the Ambassador Bridge, they shuttered factories and they idled workers. They damaged the reputation of Canada as a safe and stable place to invest. They hurt Canadians. It was clearly their intent. It is clearly what they were doing, and it had to stop.
We saw the same targeted approach to hurt Canadian interests and to harm their fellow citizens in Coutts, Alberta; in South Surrey, British Columbia; in Emerson; at the Ambassador Bridge; and a number of fakes at other border points. This was not by accident. They did not just wander into those spaces. They went for the throat of this country. They created an emergency, an emergency that we had to respond to.
For the first time, we have come to the difficult decision to invoke the authorities of the Emergencies Act. I want to assure the House from the very outset that our government recognizes the significance of this decision, and the heavy responsibility that would come with pursuing it, not just the responsibility of the government but of the House.
We approached the process with caution and with care. It was essential that we explored all options available to us. We looked at everything very closely. We looked at our existing legislation. We looked at the regulations with the support of our Department of Justice officials to see what additional federal supports would be required. We examined existing municipal, provincial and federal authorities.
I think it is rather evident the threat of parking tickets did not deter those trucks in Ottawa. The threat of the enforcement of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act did not deter those commercial carriers from coming down our highways and using their vehicles, which are licensed under that legislation, to cause harm to Canadians. It has also become clear that with the limitations, even of the authorities enshrined within federal law and the Criminal Code, our law enforcement officials were struggling.
I will give two examples that I hope will be helpful to Parliament in consideration of the necessity for these measures.
One of the challenges that our law enforcement officials had was this, and it was not just our law enforcement officials but those who are tasked with gathering and analyzing financial intelligence through FINTRAC. Unfortunately, the funding associated with these actions, which in many cases have been clearly criminal and harmful to Canadians, was opaque. It became very clear when our officials came to us that they did not have the tools they needed to provide the necessary and appropriate scrutiny of the source of that funding, and that they did not have the tools to bring the accountability and even the consequences that were required in doing their jobs. We listened to what they needed. Ontario, for example, declared an emergency and brought forward really important and useful regulations, but they could not do that because it was our responsibility. We considered that and we listened.
Another example that may sound trivial, but was significant, relates to jurisdictions right across the country. I heard from my counterpart and colleague, the minister responsible in Alberta, who for weeks had been asking for help to get tow trucks down to Coutts, Alberta, to haul those trucks away. However, the tow truck industry in Alberta, like in Ontario, like right across the country, as a result of threats and intimidation were afraid to do their jobs. We needed that equipment. We needed those drivers. We needed their ability to remove those vehicles, but they were intimidated and afraid, so we have brought forward in these measures the authority not to compel them but to really authorize them to do what we all need to be done.
I submit to all those here that these measures work. People who knew the gaps in our laws and our law enforcement's response were exploiting them. When we closed those gaps, they went to school. We saw evidence of that in Coutts.
I do not want to minimize the importance of the RCMP investigation. By the way, I am not going to comment on any of the aspects of their investigation or the prosecution that will follow. It is totally inappropriate for a minister to do so. However, I want to thank them for doing their job. I want to thank God that they were able to do it safely.
That eliminated part of the threat at Coutts, but when we announced on Monday that we were coming for the source of their funding and that there were going to be real consequences, financial consequences for their actions, they scurried away. That is exactly what we needed them to do. They did exactly the same thing in Emerson, Manitoba. Even though we saw yesterday in Windsor that some of them were going back because that is the way they can most effectively attack this country, they were stopped. They were stopped by effective law enforcement.
We have brought forward these measures, but let me also assure all my colleagues in this House that these measures must always be charter-compliant. Our expectation is that our law enforcement officials will do their job, the job we all need them to do, but they will always do it mindful of their responsibility to uphold the rule of law, to effect their lawful purpose with a minimum of force and to do the work right.
I also want to assure this House that we will be there to support them. When they say they need tools, we will give them the tools to do the job. When they say they need resources, we will provide those resources to do the job.
Every order of government and every person in this House has a responsibility to stand up with resolve and determination and to do what is necessary to protect Canada's interests.
1265 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:27:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I note that the deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, would disagree with the minister's suggestion that there is extremist financing of the convoy, but I will move on to my question.
Back in January through March 2020, as the minister said, those people came for the throat. What happened to the throat of our country when our railways were being blockaded and when our pipelines were being blockaded? We could not even get propane to Quebec in the middle of the winter, risking the lives of so many seniors. The port of metro Vancouver was blockaded. The government said we needed to initiate dialogue, and we needed to work with those people to come to a peaceful resolution.
What is the difference with the current situation that we are facing? Why is the Emergencies Act needed?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:27:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me just speak to the member's first point because I have heard him ask the question before. Perhaps he has not been satisfied with the answer. I understand, because I also speak to FINTRAC often and I have worked with them for decades. They did not have the evidence because they did not have the tools to collect the evidence. We listened to them. They said it was opaque. They did not have the tools to examine cryptocurrency laws, for example. We told them we heard them. If they do not have the evidence, we will give them the tools to collect the evidence because it is necessary to protect Canadians.
The member's argument against these measures is clearly a little bit shallow. He needs to recognize that. He is right that we did not have that information. Now we are getting that information. It is what our law enforcement officials need to protect the country.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we agree the situation is serious. The problem is, for over two weeks, only the opposition parties recognized it as an emergency.
The Prime Minister failed in his duty to use tools that were available to him before. Quebeckers and Canadians deserve better.
I would like to know if the hon. minister is proud to be seated next to a last-resort Prime Minister.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:29:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that, not only am I proud but it is the honour of my life to be a member of this government serving Canadians. I also want to be very clear that we have been seized from the very first moment with supporting law enforcement efforts and also the efforts of our municipal and provincial partners. We have been working closely with provincial governments right across the country, including Quebec.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that we very much respect the jurisdiction of provinces and territories over policing in their jurisdiction, as I am sure they recognize and respect our responsibility to maintain the integrity and security of our borders. All orders of government have a responsibility to protect Canadians, and we will all work together to do it.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:29:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand and share the concerns that people have about the potential long-term impacts of the use of emergency measures legislation, in particular, as it relates to the expansion of the institution of policing, given the past abuses and overreach against legitimate political actions by indigenous, racial and climate-justice activists and workers. However, with the capital and country in crisis, Canadians are feeling abandoned by their local police services who have repeatedly been caught on video compromised and at times seeming to be working in collusion with the insurrectionist occupation.
The last royal commission on policing was in 1962. Will the Minister of Public Safety commit to establishing a national commission on policing that would review the duties assigned to the police and their corresponding budgets, and will the minister commit to a secretariat or some other office to report on the radicalization and use of public resources and security forces for undemocratic ends?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:30:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things that has become quite apparent, and I have heard concern across the country as well, is an overwhelming desire that the police in this country do their job and that they do it right, that they do it in a way that is compliant with all of our laws, with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that their response is measured, thoughtful, proportional and effective. We are working hard to make sure they have the tools and support they need.
I spent 40 years in policing. Policing must always be accountable to the people it serves, because the most important tool that the police have is the trust and confidence of the people they serve. We will always work to maintain that trust and confidence.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:31:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Emergency Preparedness sharing the care and caution with which this is being applied. The Prime Minister shared a more targeted approach, but I need to reconcile that with what I am reading in the regulations that we have been provided, which mention critical infrastructure quite broadly. I share the concerns of the member for Burnaby South, for example, with respect to how this could be applied in the future to indigenous land defenders and climate activists.
Could the minister clarify the difference between the more targeted approach we are hearing and the words we are seeing written here?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:32:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand the member's concern. I want to provide him with reassurance.
These measures are time-limited. They are subject to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny, and we will only use these measures as long as they are required. We recognize their extraordinary nature. They have to be subject to the scrutiny of this House; it is in the law. We will only use them as long as they are required, and we will always ensure that they are compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:32:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister and ministers across the aisle, it actually gives me no pleasure to rise to speak to the matter at hand. The invocation of the Emergencies Act earlier this week, for the first time in Canadian history, is a significant moment and it is not a moment to be pleased about. It is a solemn moment. It is a moment when we have to ask ourselves, how did we get to this situation in the first place? When we examine the evidence of how we got to this situation, I do not think there is much for the government to be proud of.
The Conservatives thoughtfully considered the justifications, written in law and given by the government, for the enacting of the Emergencies Act. The government has based its justification on one provision: that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada. This claim is not supported by the evidence. Yes, we have seen border blockades in at least four provinces and we have seen a persistent protest in Ottawa that has now been declared illegal. However, before the Emergencies Act was invoked, the blockades at the borders and across Canada were lifted or were well into the process of being lifted, so the government trying to claim credit after the fact is completely absurd. The Emergencies Act is now being used solely for the purpose of addressing the situation in Ottawa, not throughout Canada as defined by the act.
A key part of the threshold for enacting these measures is that existing laws and capabilities have proven insufficient for dealing with the problem. Existing laws are well equipped to deal with these situations. They were well equipped to deal with the situation at Coutts, Emerson and the Ambassador Bridge, and I submit they are well equipped to be used here in Ottawa.
The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said earlier that they were required to pass this so they could requisition essential services like tow trucks. However, it has been noted by many that under the Criminal Code, police already have the authority to requisition such services, under pain of criminal sanction. That was before the Emergencies Act was brought in, so this argument that the Emergencies is necessary is completely absurd.
I note that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.
The police already had the power to compel many of these services. The police already had the power to be coordinated with the RCMP, the OPP and the various police forces and national security forces throughout Canada. They have measures existing under the Criminal Code, such as mischief and intimidation, to be used against illegal protesters and blockades.
The government has used an argument where it is citing potential acts and threats of violence against Canadians and critical infrastructure. This is not just any violence, the Liberals are saying; this is violence intended for the furtherance of an ideological and political objective. I am very concerned with the language that the government is beginning to use, because that language is very similar to the language under terrorism laws. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence to advance a political or ideological agenda. The government is using terrorism legislation against Canadian protesters.
There is very little evidence that there was a serious threat to persons and critical infrastructure from these protests. There was a short-term risk, but it was dealt with by law enforcement.
An hon. member: What about those assaults outside?
Mr. Dane Lloyd: I will address the member's heckle.
I am very concerned about the situation that occurred around Coutts, Alberta, where a small group of militants was arrested with firearms and with the intent to do harm. I am so thankful for law enforcement's efforts in taking down this very real threat, and I am so confident in our law enforcement because I know they had been planning this operation for weeks. They had likely infiltrated this group. They had a plan in place and had the appropriate tools and expertise to deal with this dangerous situation and defuse it before it became a very real and dangerous situation. The fact is that they did this before the imposition of the Emergencies Act.
Clearly, they have the tools. This completely undermines the government's argument that it is justified because the tools were insufficient to deal with the problems. The tools have been sufficient. The threshold has not been met.
I want to address some comments that have been made by the government. At a press conference, the Minister of Public Safety stated very clearly and definitively that there is a connection between the militant faction at Coutts and protesters here in Ottawa. He declined to provide any evidence to back up that assertion. He was asked repeatedly by the media to back up that claim and he failed. His only evidence was to cite social media posts and a general tone that has been seen in protests across Canada.
The government has been very quick to label protesters and anyone who would oppose its political agenda. In 2021, even before the protests began, the Prime Minister called people who opposed mandatory vaccinations racists and misogynists, among other epithets. Since the beginning of the protests, the government has sought to brand and label all protesters as fringe extremists with “unacceptable views”. Despite this unrelenting scrutiny and rhetoric, there has still been no evidence of violent extremists in Ottawa. If there were, I do not know how the government could believe it is being responsible in allowing us all to be here today, walking the streets of Ottawa. It undermines the whole claim.
There is no evidence of a plot to violently overthrow the Canadian government, despite constant repetition in saying so. I remember a quote by a previous Liberal minister, who said that if we tell a lie big enough and loudly enough, people will totally believe it. The government is constantly saying things that it does not have the evidence to back up. I would like to see that evidence if it is there. We deserve to see that evidence.
This act was not designed or intended to crack down on peaceful protesters, even if they are protesting illegally. We have other laws to deal with that. The government is citing a so-called terrorist threat. However, although having protesters in Ottawa is very inconvenient and terrible for the people of downtown Ottawa, honking horns does not meet the threshold of a terrorist organization. The government knows that.
Without further evidence of a violent threat, I cannot in good conscience support the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Even if I were to accept that the government has met the threshold for calling on emergency powers, I would still have serious reservations about the powers the government has said it needs for dealing with this situation. If it believes there is a threat to critical infrastructure and persons, which it has said, and it shows evidence, I could support declaring Parliament Hill and certain sensitive areas as no-go zones. I could accept that we need better coordination between the RCMP and local police. However, what I cannot accept is the government's need to undermine section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees Canadians a right against unreasonable search and seizure and having their bank accounts frozen.
The Minister of Justice, while on a panel last night, said that anyone who is part of a so-called pro-Trump organization should be worried. I think all Canadians should be worried when a Minister of Justice threatens people because of their political views. That is not the Canada that any of us want to see and it is unacceptable.
Throughout this debate, which we are going to be having over the next number of days, Canadians will know that their official opposition is alive and well. We are prepared to stand up for Canadians' rights. We are prepared to hold the government accountable. We are going to keep fighting. We are not going to stop standing up for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
1376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:42:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech on CPAC as I was walking over here. I want to try to reduce the tone of this debate, so I will respectfully point out a couple of things.
First, what happened in Coutts, Alberta, is extremely concerning for any Canadian, and I presume all parliamentarians who are concerned about violence.
Second, people, including some outside of this very building, have openly called for the overthrow of a duly elected government, including an entity that is calling itself Canada Unity. I think that is direct evidence of an ideological imperative or agenda that is being pursued.
Last, I will gently point out one thing to the member opposite, and I appreciated his submissions, with all sincerity. All that is being extended here with respect to laws that are already compliant with section 8 of the charter, which relate to unreasonable search and seizure and FINTRAC, is ensuring that FINTRAC can be applied to cryptocurrency and crowdfunding sources. Is that not a necessary initiative given the foreign funding that is streaming into this country right now? If the member could—
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:43:30 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was at the public safety committee when the deputy director of intelligence, Barry MacKillop, answered a question from one of his colleagues: Why are we not covering these crowdfunding sources? It is obviously a big loophole. The deputy director stated that the payment processors moving the money from individuals to the crowdsourcing pages report to FINTRAC, and the Canadian banks that receive the money from the crowdsourcing efforts report to the Canadian government. He stated there is no such thing as anonymous donations because everyone must provide their name and credit card. There are no anonymous donations. FINTRAC knows exactly who is donating and exacting where the money is going, and it has the tools it needs. We do not need this further infringement on Canadians' rights and freedoms.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:44:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party intend to oppose the use of the Emergencies Act, but our reasons for doing so are very different.
The Bloc is against it because both the National Assembly of Quebec and the current Government of Quebec have unanimously stated they do not want the feds to interfere in their business yet again by imposing the Emergencies Act. Lest we forget, pretty much every Quebecker has not-so-fond memories of what happened in 1970.
My colleague talked about there being no proof that the group of demonstrators, or rather, occupiers currently in Ottawa includes more radical elements who could pose a threat to people's safety or to national security. Is that what my colleague was saying? Is he saying that he really does not believe that some of the people participating in the illegal demonstrations could pose a threat to public safety? Does he believe what he sees on social media and what we have seen with weapons seizures in other places where protests are happening?
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:45:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we could go on Twitter right now and find some of the most outrageous, offensive and criminal statements across Canada. What we do not do in this country is base the passage of laws and the invocation of emergency acts upon the possibility of a threat. We must base it on a real threat. We must base it on evidence that there is a threat to Canadians. The fact that we are allowed to walk freely through this parliamentary precinct with protesters less than 100 metres from us right now undermines the claim that there is a serious threat to Canadian democracy.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:46:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find this very difficult. My hon. colleague across the way said that people were just honking their horns. He seemed to suggest that this convoy is a simple annoyance for the people in Ottawa. I have spoken to quite a few people who are working downtown. A lovely young woman served me lunch at a restaurant and I asked her how she was doing. She talked about the harassment and specific assaults. She talked about assaults on friends of hers who are working in the ByWard Market. That is what we need to address.
Could the member explain why he seems to think this is just a simple annoyance and why he would want to take away the safety of the people who are working and living downtown?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:47:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is putting words in my mouth. I am not saying this is a simple inconvenience for the people of downtown Ottawa. I am not downplaying the experiences she mentioned. I believe they are true experiences and unacceptable experiences. However, they are experiences that can be dealt with through existing laws. Harassment is a crime. Intimidation is a crime. It is up to police to enforce these measures. We do not need emergency powers to enforce existing laws.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:47:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for agreeing to share his time with me.
It is very important for Canadians to understand that the government's proposal to invoke the Emergencies Act is in no way connected to public safety, restoring order or upholding the rule of law. We know this because we know what it has done with previous protests and blockades. When the Prime Minister agrees with the aims of protesters, he does nothing. Actually, it would be unfair to say he does nothing. He does nothing to end the blockades, but he will send negotiators, who send government delegations to meet with protesters and even propose settlements and compromises when he agrees with the political aims of those protesting.
We know this because in 2020, anti-energy protesters, and anti-oil and gas protesters held up vital transportation links for weeks. At the time, the Prime Minister had a much different tone. Let us look at what he said when vital transportation links and rail lines were blockaded, crippling the Canadian economy for weeks at a time. He said, “Therefore, we are creating a space for peaceful, honest dialogue with willing partners.” Compare that to the rhetoric and inflammatory language that he has used over the past several weeks in 2022.
Make no mistake, the protests that are happening in Ottawa and have taken place across the country are a direct result of the Prime Minister's actions and rhetoric, and the demonization of people who are fighting to get their rights back. Canadians have had two years of incredible hardship, of politicians and government agencies telling them they were not allowed to have family members visit them inside their own homes, of governments telling business owners that they had to keep their doors shut and their employees laid off, of people not being able to use the various support systems they have had in their lives, such as relying on friends and family. Gyms were closed and activities for children were cancelled.
After two years of this, just as there is hope on the horizon, as other jurisdictions around the world and even here in Canada were lifting restrictions and easing mandates, the Prime Minister added a new one. He added a new restriction after two years of telling truck drivers that they were essential services and that they would be allowed to travel across the border to bring vital goods to our markets. After two years of deeming them an essential service, just as there was hope and reasons to lift restrictions and mandates, the Prime Minister added a new one without any data or evidence to back it up.
Then people started objecting to this. They were finally saying that enough is enough, they want their freedoms back, and it is time for the government to retreat back to the normal boundaries of government interference in their lives. When people started doing that, gathering to peacefully protest against government overreach, what did the Prime Minister do? He called them names and tried to smear them with broad brushes. He called them racists and misogynists. He asked the rhetorical question of whether or not we should tolerate these people. I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question: What does not tolerating these people look like? What he has done over the past few weeks has been shameful.
The Prime Minister has lowered the office in which he serves to unprecedented depths. In my 17 years of being a member of Parliament, I have never seen a prime minister or, for that matter, any other politician so debase the office that they hold, hurling insults at people and referring to a Jewish member of this House as standing with people waving swastikas. It is outrageous.
My hon. colleagues on the Liberal benches have often admonished their political opponents for even sharing the same postal code as someone who may be holding an offensive flag or a placard with unacceptable language on it. When Conservatives denounced that, it was not good enough for members of the Liberal Party. They say we are supposed to paint the entire group protesting with that broad brush, but they do not hold themselves to that same standard.
I see many hon. members across the way, some of whom I have served with. I know them to be honourable people. I do not assume that they are all racist because their leader has performed racist acts by putting on blackface so often in his life that he cannot remember how many times he has done it. We do not paint every single Liberal member of Parliament with that brush. They have no problem being photographed with the Prime Minister, despite his history of racist acts, neither should members of Parliament paint the entire group of people who are protesting for their freedoms with that same broad brush.
Let us look at the lengths to which the government goes, and indeed not just the government, but many of its friends in the corporate media, to paint every single person who is protesting and demanding an end to the restrictions and the mandates with that broad brush. They go to great lengths to discredit and dehumanize those people, who are just fighting for their traditional civil liberties.
We could look at this in two different groups. On the one hand, we have people who are saying that after two years of hardship, sacrifice, and being forced to comply with unprecedented government intrusion in their lives, with government telling them where to go and who they can have in their house, which is a level of government interference of the like we have not seen in recent Canadian history, after two years of that, they just do not believe they should be fired for making a health care decision.
On the other hand, there is a group of people who are saying that anybody who holds that view is a racist, a misogynist or an insurrectionist. There is a group of people who are saying that government should have the ability to tell people who they can have in their house, and whether or not their business is allowed to stay open.
Which group seems more unreasonable? I would say that after two years, those who are fighting against the government intrusion in their lives have a legitimate case to make. Whether or not we agree with them, we must respect their right to advocate for their views. The Prime Minister has not provided any legitimate justification for bringing in the Emergencies Act. He asks us to trust him. He says we should not worry, that the government is going to make sure everything is fine with the courts and that everything is compliant with the charter.
This is the same guy who fired his attorney general because she would not go along with his plans to interfere in a criminal court case. Pardon the members of the Conservative Party if we are not going to take the Prime Minister's word that he is not going to abuse the power that he is granting himself.
He points to specific instances that the Conservatives denounced. We denounced the rail blockades in 2020 and we denounced the border blockades in 2022. We do not believe that the right to peacefully protest should mean the right to infringe on the freedoms and rights of other people. We raised that point in 2020, calling on the government to do something about the rail blockades when it was the anti-energy workers. By the way, there have been a lot of radical left-wing protests across the country where we could see all kinds of placards, including anti-Semitic placards and banners advocating violence against police officers, and we do not see the government rushing to crack down on those.
The government is talking about foreign funding. What about the foreign funding that is pouring into Canada by the hundreds of millions of dollars to help groups fight against energy projects and natural resource projects across the country? That did not seem to bother the government then. Now, all of a sudden, it says it has to do something about it.
It is a little like the scene in Casablanca when the inspector comes to Rick and says that he has to close the place down because there is illegal gambling going on, and then the croupier comes over and puts his winnings in his pocket. That is what the government is doing. For years, it has relied on foreign funding coming to help its allies in the political spectrum fight for its goals and fight against Canadians and their interests.
This is the exact same playbook that we have seen dictatorial governments use across the world. They dehumanize their opponents. They invoke threats of foreign influence. Let us remember, the Berlin Wall was ostensibly built to keep others out. Governments always talk about their good intentions when they take away rights and liberties. I am asking Canadians not be fooled by this.
I am asking members of the Liberal Party who actually believe in civil liberties, who actually do believe in the natural limits of government, to do—
1545 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
