SoVote

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

Feb/19/22 3:06:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is not often that we agree with the Conservatives, but I have to admit that, this time, we feel essentially the same way about the use of the Emergencies Act. Does my colleague agree that the use of the act right now is an attempt to make up for the government's inaction and indifference over the past 20 days? Does he agree that the government is trying to portray itself as a saviour to restore its reputation, when the real saviours are the ones one the ground right now, tactfully ensuring public safety?

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Feb/19/22 3:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix for her question. The government decided to use the act for several reasons. I agree with the hon. member that one reason is that the government wanted to change public opinion about its actions and about the bad decisions it has made over the last four weeks.

73 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/19/22 3:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member as somebody who has worked very hard for his constituents. I just want to tell him that I have been thinking very much about the deep pain his constituents are going through as they recover from the floods. He quoted previous members of Parliament. I wanted to quote one back to him, if I could, from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and Senator Vern White: What we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and the blockages of border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. If a national security and economic threat to Canada is not an opportunity to use the Emergencies Act, I would ask the member, what on earth could be?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Feb/19/22 3:08:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think she missed the quote of Peter MacKay saying that the Emergencies Act might be a push too far. The quotes I gave from previous members of Parliament related to the actual debate taking place in here. There was all-party consensus in this chamber when we decided to pass the Emergencies Act: Members of Parliament from all political parties were concerned about government overreach. They were concerned. In the legislation, it is clearly enshrined that no other law could apply. Only in specific situations did they believe that this was possible. Across our history as a great nation, there are numerous precedents indicating that this law was not required at this moment in time.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:09:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I will say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. Canada has a beautiful democracy, but let me be clear: Although beauty is not always perfect or without flaws, it is beautiful nonetheless, and our democracy is under attack by those who seek to destabilize it and to harm it. The foundation for what is happening, from the illegal border blockades to the occupation of Ottawa, has been building for some time and is grounded in misinformation and hate. Back in May, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we heard from Timothy Hahlweg at CSIS that ideologically motivated violent extremist groups were working together, united by the pandemic, to push their dangerous agendas and their hate. He said that “with COVID-19, we have seen various groups that previously weren't aligned, or individuals who perhaps were not sharing the same ideology or the same motivation, come together under a common cause, whether that is anti-government activity or anti-vaccination activities.” The rise in the misinformation from the these hateful groups continues to incite hate and fear, and it appears to be at least partly fuelling the blockades at the border and the occupation of Ottawa. We know certain ringleaders of this occupation are firmly grounded in white nationalism. Swastikas, Confederate and far-right-style flags, along with signs stating misinformation about everything from the safety of wearing a mask to taking a vaccine, have been seen all over the occupied area of Ottawa. I know not everyone who has taken part in this occupation holds this in their hearts, but this is the company they are keeping, and seeing members from across the aisle go out and help fuel and support this occupation has been eye-opening for many Canadians. To be clear, the leaders of this illegal occupation posted their MOU online, specifically calling for the destruction of our democracy. It has never been hidden. In Canada, we have an important charter right to freedom of peaceful assembly. When I was first elected as a member of Parliament, one of the first things I noticed was how many people from across Canada would come to Parliament to protest and to advocate for the causes they deeply believe in. Whether they were a small group walking right up on the lawn of Centre Block or thousands of people, they would peacefully state their causes while respecting the rights and freedoms of the residents of Ottawa to live freely in their own city. We do not see this level of accessibility in many other countries, and it is so special and so worth protecting. Peaceful protests can make us uncomfortable, and in Canada that is okay. I will not state the cause, but each year there is a rally that brings thousands of people to Ottawa's Parliament Hill, and believe me, it makes me uncomfortable. I do not support the cause, but I respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. They come and they hold their rally; there is usually a robust counter-protest, and they leave. To be very clear, what is going on in Ottawa has not been a peaceful protest. What we have seen in Ottawa and at the borders is a threat to Canada's sovereignty and democracy under the guise of freedom. These occupiers have stolen the freedom of the people of Ottawa. They have kept citizens held hostage in their homes, while terrorizing them with high-decibel noise, hate and harassment. People have not been able to leave their homes or wear masks without fear of being ridiculed, harassed and made to feel unsafe in their own city. This occupation has stolen the economic livelihood of many. Due to harassment and other terrible acts, the mall and businesses in the area have not been able to stay open safely. Many people, especially those on minimum wage, are going without, while the occupiers remained for three weeks, and despite the City of Ottawa declaring a state of emergency and then the Province declaring a state of emergency, blockades and the occupation of Ottawa continued. When other orders of government call upon us, the Government of Canada, we answer that call, and we have been there to provide support for Ottawa and for the situations at our border every step of the way. We continued to work within the confines of existing measures and laws to provide resources. We know the damage caused by the illegal border blockades has harmed Canada's economy profoundly. The Ambassador Bridge alone supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and our most important trading partner, the United States. That is around $390 million per day. My heart goes out to the hard-working truckers who were harmed by the illegal blockades. They were stuck at the border and stuck on highways for hours and hours while they were simply doing their job to keep Canada's supply chains moving. The same goes for what happened in Coutts, where we know that around $48 million in daily trade was affected by the illegal blockade. A peaceful demonstration should never harm others. A peaceful demonstration should never breach the rights of others. The impacts of these illegal border blockades will be long-lasting. We know that they have threatened businesses here in Canada and the livelihood of workers. In fact, it is shameful. I have heard from so many folks from across Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who have been watching the struggles and hearing from loved ones in Ottawa about what is going on. They have been demanding stronger action from the start. Everyone from veterans to teachers and from seniors to young people has been speaking out in my riding, self-identifying as supporters from various political parties. Some say that they have never before felt so moved to reach out to their MP as now. They are frightened by the hate and the lawlessness that they were seeing at the borders and in Ottawa. They wanted to make sure that all orders of government were working together and doing everything possible to take control of the situation, preserve democracy and restore order. It has been crystal clear that there were many challenges to local law enforcement's ability to enforce the law in Ottawa. We have invoked the Emergencies Act to provide more support for the provincial and territorial authorities to address both the blockades and the occupation to keep Canadians safe, restore confidence in our institutions and protect people's jobs. There is simply no other law in Canada that would provide this level of coordination and support. My colleagues, many of whom are lawyers, have already, clearly and concisely, provided the legal case for invoking this act. It is met, and there is no question that this Emergencies Act is far from being the antiquated War Measures Act of the past. This act will not send in the military. The Emergencies Act preserves the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensuring that the individual rights of Canadians are protected, as they must be. All parliamentarians must work together for Canadians. That means working together to restore order in Canada, and it means working together to protect Canada's democracy by standing up against hate, even when it is difficult to do so. I encourage all members of this House to join us in standing up for families, for workers and for democracy.

1257 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/19/22 3:18:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My hon. colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, spoke about many lawyers in this House who have scrutinized this bill and have felt that the threshold is met. Well, I can tell him that after scrutinizing the bill, this lawyer does not feel that the threshold has been met. The member spoke about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was interesting, because part of the rule of law is that the law must be predictable and it must be transparent. In this case, when it comes to freezing assets, we do not have any predictability or any transparency about how that is going on, especially if it is delegated to a third party, such as banks. How can this hon. member say that the charter is being respected when the rule of law cannot be upheld through a third party?

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:18:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the member from the opposition party for doing everything in his power to take care of the people in his constituency. I know that we are all in this for the right reasons, even though, most often, we disagree in basic ideologies in this House. I want to thank him for that work. This act protects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I said in my comments, there is no peaceful protest that can get in the way of the rights and freedoms of other Canadians. This was an occupation and an illegal protest.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/19/22 3:19:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree, for the most part, with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. People have the right to protest, but not to occupy. Harassment, economic loss and tragedy are unacceptable. As we agree on the end goal, I have a question for him. Is this the best way we could find—

57 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 3:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Order. There was a problem with the interpretation, but it is now resolved. I would ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivières to repeat his question.

28 words

Mr. René Villemure

Feb/19/22 3:20:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. The end goal is to restore order. We share that goal and agree entirely. We fully agree that the harassment, the tragedies, the disruption of people's lives and the economic losses are unacceptable. Now, if we want to restore order, is this the best way, or is it the only avenue left after so much inaction?

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member agrees with this side of the House that this is an unacceptable situation. I heard the interim police chief in Ottawa almost breath a sigh of relief that finally the resources the police felt they needed for stepping in to solve this issue have been provided to them. It was wonderful to hear the interim chief speak to how the resources that come from the Emergencies Act have allowed them to move forward.

82 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/19/22 3:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. As an Inuk and indigenous person, I have inherent mistrust in law enforcement. I have seen all too often how law enforcement treats my community, indigenous people and people of colour. All too often we have been at the wrong end of the law. Law enforcement arbitrarily targets my communities. My NDP colleagues and I have weighed very heavily the measures allowed in the Emergencies Act. We are deeply aware of the risk to Canada's democracy, and without the drastic measures, we are aware of the security threats to our national security posed by foreign extremists. I have received threats from as far as New Brunswick because of the debate on the Emergencies Act. Could the member explain to Canadians why this is a national issue requiring urgent action?

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:22:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have spent the day listening to this debate, and I want to thank the member for her very wise interventions all day. She has been on the mike several times and I want to thank her for that. Our national security and the threat to our economy have made this act, unfortunately, necessary.

56 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 3:23:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. friend from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour about the interventions from the member for Nunavut. I am still deciding how I am going to vote, but I want to ask the hon. member how much, in addition to the economic threats, using the Emergencies Act is motivated by recognizing that this is not a single threat but a vast network that seeks to undermine democracies. The member's last word in his speech was “democracy”, and as informed by Vladimir Putin and forces of the right in the U.S., we are suffering from a foreign-influenced effort to undermine our democracy.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:24:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I sat on the national defence committee and the public security committee, and we heard from experts all over the world that there is a planned misinformation campaign aimed directly at countries by our adversaries and enemies. The member is absolutely right that this is affecting and impacting democracy in Canada.

58 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I usually start by saying that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak here. However, it is the first time in 24 years that I needed a police escort to enter this chamber, and it is likely that all of us will need police escorts to exit this chamber. That is the state of emergency affairs in Ottawa as we speak. Sedition, by definition, is “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state”. Emergency, by definition, is “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.” There is a further definition in the Emergencies Act that largely supports this notion: threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve...sovereignty [and] security Over the last three weeks, we have seen a ragtag convoy of truckers, apparently here to protest mandates, morph into an anarchistic challenge to legitimate authority, seriously impairing the life, economic well-being and safety of Canadians from coast to coast: from Ottawa to the Ambassador Bridge, to the Ambassador Bridge times two and times three, to Toronto protests, to Quebec protests, to the Blue Water Bridge, to the Emerson, Manitoba, closures, to the Coutts, Alberta, closure and to closures in British Columbia. There has been billions of dollars's worth of economic disruptions and broken supply chains. Citizens have been rendered hopeless and fearful. Citizen have been threatening each other and threatening to take the law into their own hands in the face of police impotence or their refusal to act. I do not know what else we could possibly want before declaring a state of national emergency, with the possible exception of violence in the streets. Some seem to think that should be part of the debate and is a necessary precondition. It is also equally clear some insurrectionists would be pleased if that happened, if anarchy and lawlessness prevailed and legitimate authority were undermined. All the while, these “brave anarchists” are hiding behind children in bouncy castles and waving Canadians flags, sometimes right side up and sometimes not. The protest has migrated from misguided complaints about mandates to sedition. Most of the mandates are from provincial authorities and are being cautiously lifted with the guidance of public health authorities. The blockade, if it was ever about mandates in the first place, should be in provincial capitals. The sole mandate within the federal jurisdiction is at the border and can only be lifted in conjunction with the American government. They should take their protest to Washington, assuming they can get across the border. What is this seditious blockade really about? I am sure members have heard about campaigns of misinformation and disinformation. As my hon. friend mentioned in his speech, at the public safety committee and the defence committee we heard a lot of testimony about misinformation and disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors. I do not have any personal or direct evidence of the attempted destabilization of a G7 NATO country in opposition to Russia on the verge of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but I have to think that works to the advantage of President Putin. Any destabilization effort that erodes national consensus works to the advantage of our two major adversaries, China and Russia. Russian TV has been promoting alternative theories of the utility of vaccines and paranoid theories about implanting chips. It also questions the effectiveness of mandates, sowing doubts in the minds of those looking to express their frustration and anger. At this point, it is directed at Parliament, the government and the Prime Minister. The evidence of non-state actors is a bit more clear. Funding from the U.S. is blatantly obvious and is from sources in the U.S. associated with the most odious elements of American society. The Conservatives have been saying for weeks that all we need to do is talk to these people, so I started returning telephone calls and responding to emails. I cannot help but observe that I have become quite popular in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. All of these non-constituents want to help me vote for my constituents. Just today, we received 1,300 emails, and we had 600 the day before. To these non-constituents, I offer an insincere apology for ignoring them. My constituents, on the other hand, I do not ignore, and have not for nine elections and 24 years. There is more of a mix among those who want me to vote against the legislation, and they are more vociferous this week. However, last week others wanted me to end it. The conversations with those who want me to vote against the bill exhibit a belligerence, coupled with a substantial amount of misinformation and disinformation, that makes one despair. When the conversation starts with, “I have never voted for you and I never will”, we know we are off to a bad start. For nine elections and 24 years, there must have been a great deal of frustration for this individual caller. When the conversation is peppered with the Prime Minister's last name in conjunction with what the Speaker would rule to be unparliamentary language, all seemingly starting with the same letter, we know the conversation is not going to go well. Also, trying to carry on a conversation with a blowing horn from an 18-wheeler in the background is indeed an impediment to civilized discourse. What is so discouraging when we get through all of this is the dissonance of fact. Minimal understanding of civics and science must be the basis for civilized discourse, but the “alternative facts” narrative, perpetrated by that notorious Trump acolyte, has taken hold here. That is ultimately what is so discouraging. By one means or another, this insurrection will end, but the damage to political discourse will linger. It is difficult to have conversations with horns blaring, engines revving, diesel fumes in the air, a commitment to alternative facts and certain politicians giving aid and comfort to sedition. I therefore support, wholeheartedly, this initiative as a measured, scaled, charter-consistent response to the blatant disregard for the rule of law. If revocation of licences, revocation of insurance and freezing of bank accounts will not do it, I support the police cordoning off areas and arresting those who refuse to leave, which they are doing as we speak. I have been very impressed by the measured and careful response of the police in the last couple of days. I condemn the lawless thugs hiding behind children. I condemn violence. This legislation should serve as a warning to lawless brigands, especially to the organizers, both foreign and domestic. We are a nation where the rule of law prevails in all matters. This misinformation and disinformation campaign, whether from foreign or domestic sources, is deeply settled in the minds of these insurrectionists, who see conspiracies everywhere and seem to be incapable of adjusting deeply held preconceptions of certain basic facts. It takes us, as a nation, into a very dark place.

1182 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Feb/19/22 3:33:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about peaceful protests, and I want to commend the law enforcement we have had over the last number of weeks here in Ottawa. They have been keeping the peace and doing a wonderful job of ending the blockade here this week. Conservatives have been calling for an end to it for a while. Ottawa knew for days that this protest, the “freedom convoy”, was coming into Ottawa. The mayor knew, the police chief knew and security here in Ottawa knew. They knew for days before they even arrived. We have seen hundreds of thousands of people here for weeks on end without so much as a broken window. What are the first, second and third things the government could have done before dropping the sledgehammer by invoking this legislation? We are still waiting to hear the answer, so I would like to hear the member's answer on that.

156 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Feb/19/22 3:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the first thing is provision of intelligence. We had open-source intelligence that this convoy was coming and that this was their intention. The second was the application of resources. Resources were made freely available to police services in Ottawa. The third thing was the immense resources of the Government of Canada, all of which were made available to this municipality. For whatever reason, that did not seem to be sufficient to deal with this seditious enterprise by these lawless brigands.

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/19/22 3:34:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech. I appreciate my colleague in general, because I know he is sincere, honest and passionate. However, we have different opinions on the issue at hand today. Does he believe that all the legislative tools available to the various levels of government were used before the Emergencies Act was invoked today? If so, can he tell me which ones were used?

70 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Feb/19/22 3:35:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am quite fond of my hon. friend, even when he is wrong. The Criminal Code of Canada should have been sufficient for the purpose. However, it is clear that, over the course of the two or three weeks of insurrection across the country, for whatever reason, it was not. As I said earlier, if stopping insurance, revoking licences, freezing bank accounts, cordoning off areas or requisitioning tow trucks will do it, then that is what has to happen. I also want to applaud the work of the Sûreté du Québec, which has fortunately ignored the Government of Quebec and has provided aid and assistance to the policing effort here in Ottawa.

120 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34