SoVote

Feb/19/22 3:51:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the question. The first is if I am satisfied with how it is being used. The truth is that I probably do not know all the ways it is being used right now, but I have a lot of confidence there is going to be an inquiry into the measures used during the emergency. That inquiry has to be initiated once the state of emergency is over. With respect to setting a precedent, for me what is important is that I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of how we declared this Emergencies Act. I appreciated that it is time and geographically limited, as well as proportional and reasonable to—

116 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 3:52:10 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

10 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:52:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, many members have said we already had the legislative tools, yet I noticed that the Province of Ontario enacted some emergency legislation. Would the member not agree that the reason exceptional legislation was not sufficient was that it did not engage FINTRAC and could not deputize police forces from outside Ontario?

53 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Feb/19/22 3:52:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. We realized, and the police forces across the country made us realize, that there were some gaps in their ability to be able to act. Tracking and stopping the money was one of the key elements that was missing, as was designating spaces to be able to enforce protection and enabling tow trucks to take action. To address the use of trucks as instruments in the blockades was also a gap in our ability to use existing laws.

87 words

All Topics

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:53:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been reflecting all day on the very momentous occasion this is and the kind of debate that is lengthy, engaged and important. I have been listening all day and have actually found the contributions of all the members, which I have agreed with or not agreed with, to be quite helpful for me in engaging with this conversation. We do not do that often in this House. We do not have dozens of hours of debate on an issue, and we are doing that because of the singular importance of invoking this act. Even as we engage in our debate today, Ottawa police officers, supported by local police, Sûreté du Québec, the Ontario Provincial Police and the RCMP, are continuing to calmly, peacefully and effectively work to free our capital city, even as it remains under siege in an illegal occupation. I thank them. With the invocation of the Emergencies Act, police forces and other authorities are able to engage co-operatively to restore peace, order and good government in this city. In fact, the act itself can trace its roots right back to that part of the Constitution Act of 1867. It is important that we do that to have police forces co-operating with the tools they need to act in an emergency situation, but what may be less apparent, and has been mentioned today but is equally important, is that this act allows us to put the squeeze on foreign and non-transparent domestic funding of the extremist groups at work behind this occupation, to bring it to an end. As I speak, I am hopeful that the end is now in sight and the end comes without incident, without injury and certainly without loss of life. Let me be perfectly clear. All Canadians value freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate. That is a fundamental part of what it means to be Canadian. I, as a United Church minister, have been part of many demonstrations aimed at drawing attention to important issues of social justice, and I am sure I will do that again in the future. What has transpired in Ottawa, at border crossings and at a bridge over the last few weeks has not been that. Over these past three weeks, I have walked through the crowds gathered near Parliament. I have seen their signs. I have heard their comments. I have also been learning from them. I have learned that there are many people on the streets here who are angry. They feel left out. They feel unheard for a variety of reasons. For some, this pandemic has exacerbated other problems, such as economic problems, social problems and health problems. Our job is fundamentally to listen to them, to find ways to help them and to respect them. I am committed to doing that, but their anger and frustration have been both manipulated and exploited by extremists who are fuelled by nothing more than malevolence and a complete disrespect for the values and institutions Canadians have built and depend on. What is—

520 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 3:56:45 p.m.
Watch

Can I interrupt the hon. member for just one moment? I really apologize. Can the member take his phone and maybe move it away from the microphone? It is impeding the microphone. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

42 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Feb/19/22 3:57:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the anger and frustration of the people on the streets, I believe, have been manipulated and exploited by extremists who are fuelled by nothing more than malevolence and a complete disrespect for the values and institutions that Canadians have built and depend on. What has transpired in Ottawa over the past three weeks is a massive disruption that is meant to do more than disrupt traffic and make a point about vaccines or pandemic mandates. It is a manifestation led by a small group of people, fuelled by anger, even hatred, aimed at subverting democracy and the rule of law. Democracy and the rule of law go hand in hand with freedom. They protect our freedom. It is time for this illegal occupation to end. The vast majority of Canadians, I believe, understand this and agree with our government's approach. While I respect and value the opinions of all, this is a time when, I believe, we need to hold up democracy, democratic institutions and the rule of law, so that freedom can be maintained. Mr. Speaker, speaking through you directly to the residents of Don Valley West, I want to thank them for taking the time to write to me and to call me, including expressing concerns for my personal safety over these last few weeks. While I note the minority of people who disagree with me, I have reached the opinion that the federal government is taking the right measured careful action in invoking this law. They have exhausted all other options and have had to act, and they are doing so by intelligently and judiciously invoking this act. We are all tired of COVID-19. We want this pandemic to end and we all wish that there was a final firm timeline to set that end, but this is a virus. It is persistent. It is evolving. No one is able to give an exact timetable for the return to normal life. I hear the Conservatives call for the government to set a deadline for our return to normal, a so-called plan. Frankly, what is required is that we have many plans for all the contingencies that could happen with this unpredictable virus, and we do. Both at the federal level and at the level of the provinces and territories we have such plans, plans to open public spaces, plans to travel more easily, plans to combat new and yet undiscovered variants and plans to ensure every person in the world, not just Canadians, are fully vaccinated. These plans are developed constantly by public servants who are following the science and advising the governments across this country. Right now what we really need is patience, persistence, co-operation, care for our neighbours, support for frontline workers, especially in health care, and a following of the rule of law in this country. The virus will be beaten. The pandemic will end, but it will end through vaccinations and public health advances and protocols, not by occupying our nation's capital, not by blockading bridges, by stopping commerce and by stopping the freedom of other Canadians to go about their daily business. More than 5.8 million people have died from COVID-19 around the world. It is a pandemic. It is the enemy. The enemies are not the scientists. The enemies are not politicians. The enemies are not medical professionals. They are not public health officials. The enemy is an unpredictable, mutating, persistent virus that needs to be beaten. The virus, however, is not the only enemy that needs to be countered. The disinformation and misinformation of this pandemic has become endemic. It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people are falling prey to that misinformation and do not see the far-right agenda that is at work in this situation. They are an opportunistic infection, if there ever was one. Fuelled by paranoia, conspiracy theories and ignorance, it has culminated in the demonstration that we are seeing in our city streets, which we have been listening to and walking through. We are hearing the hurt. We are hearing the disaffection. We are hearing the anger, but we also want them to know they are heard and should not be manipulated by extremists who have no other goal but to disrupt our freedom and democracy and the rule of law in this country. Therefore, we have the Emergencies Act to end the blockades at this time. Our Prime Minister waited as long as he could, working hard to diffuse the situation. Over the past weeks, illegal road, border and bridge closures, and their significant negative impact on the economy, convinced the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act. There will be discussion about that. There will be a parliamentary committee overseeing it. There will be hearings after it is over, and there will be public discourse. However, right now in this House, we should be united to ensure that we remain a country of democracy, the rule of law and ensuring that our fundamental freedoms are enshrined. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was a Liberal bill. We also have the Bill of Rights, which was a Conservative bill. Both of them are protected in the Emergencies Act. As the interim Ottawa police chief, Steve Bell, noted, right now this act is helpful, necessary and effective. We see it working as our streets are slowly being cleared. This morning, I walked into this place somewhat afraid of the day ahead. I believe tonight I will go back home just a bit more sure that Canada will remain a place where all of us are safe, all of us will have our rights and freedoms protected, and all of us will be able to engage. We will continue to do this. We will work together. I encourage all members of this House, all parties, to engage in this, as it is important to their constituents, to ending this pandemic and to making sure Canada remains Canada.

1003 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Feb/19/22 4:03:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did notice a term in my colleague's speech when he talked about far right and far left. These are divisive terms. In here, we have to look at people as they are people, and make sure that we are actually listening to Canadian voices, wherever on the spectrum they may be, and make sure that everybody gets heard in this country. Stigmatizing some of those voices is not the right approach to this. I know the member usually does not undertake that kind of behaviour. I will ask him a question around Canada's financial system. I would pose, for the member, that Canada already has adequate laws under FINTRAC to address foreign funding coming into Canada and looking at it. Would the member reconsider the notion of stigmatizing the bank accounts of people who donated a small amount to people they supported in these protests as they came to Ottawa, when they were protests, who now have the prospect of having their bank accounts frozen as a result. Would the member reconsider that at this time?

181 words

All Topics

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Feb/19/22 4:04:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear. The government has absolutely no intention of stigmatizing anybody in this process. However, we are going to follow the money. Now, we have the tools to follow the money and find out exactly where influence is being spread. For two years, I was chair of the public safety committee, and I often listened to Conservatives saying that Liberals were naive, not following the threats and not following the information from intelligence agencies. We have listened. We are not naive on this side of the House. We are not playing politics. We are engaging in the most important systems that we need to engage in, to ensure that this country is protected. I believe the Conservatives know that, and they should get on board with it.

133 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 4:05:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. When it comes to using special legislation like the Emergencies Act, I think we need to be 100% sure that it is the right decision, unlike what my colleague from Hull—Aylmer believes. Earlier today, he told us that he was not 100% sure that this is the right decision, but he wanted to make it anyway. What does the act itself say? It says that all the other regular legislative tools have to be used before the Emergencies Act can be invoked. Does my hon. colleague believe that is the case? Does he believe that we have already used all the legislative tools at our disposal? If so, can he name those tools?

125 words

All Topics

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Feb/19/22 4:06:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, nothing in life is 100% certain. I could not live if I were waiting for everything to be 100% certain. However, I believe the burden of proof has been met. We have listened to police forces. We are giving them the tools. We are working with them to ensure our rights and freedoms are protected, but also that the authorities have the tools that they need to act. We will engage. We will have a public inquiry after this event. We have a parliamentary committee that will oversee it. Everything will be transparent. Everything will be acted upon. This is a courageous act. The legislation is there. The Prime Minister and the cabinet are using it, and frankly, I am proud of them.

125 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/19/22 4:07:11 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I want to thank the member for Don Valley West. I also want to thank the parliamentary staff, who have been doing an extraordinary job. I have described the leaders of the so-called “freedom convoy” as extremists. I am being asked by my constituents in Nunavut what extremists I am talking about. Could the member describe those who have led the illegal blockades and tell us exactly what danger they pose to the rest of Canada?

81 words

All Topics

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Feb/19/22 4:07:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut for her leadership on this issue. I have been profoundly moved by her questions, both about inclusion and about rights, and now this one. Arrests have been made. A significant number of arrests have been made yesterday and today. These folks are now before the courts, so I am not going to comment on them directly. The court processes will take place, and we will understand what happens later. It is my instinct, however, and having followed the news on this and having followed intelligence over the last number of years about who is moving and where our biggest threats to Canada are, I believe those threats are from extremist far-right groups. I think that right now is a time when it has come to a head. We will have a clearer and better picture once our courts have acted.

151 words

All Topics

Hon. Mona Fortier (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 4:08:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the supplementary estimates (C), 2021-22.

18 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Feb/19/22 4:10:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I must ask how someone so irresponsible can be entrusted with such great responsibility. Our country is more divided than ever before. Over the past two years, we have seen the government divide Canadians for political gain over and over again by pitting one region against the other, pitting east against west, pitting Canadians against each other, eroding trust in our institutions and flouting the rule of law. The primary responsibility of the Prime Minister is to maintain peace, order and good government. What grade should the Prime Minister get? He gets an F in my book. We do not have peace. We do not have order, and I think all Canadians know the answer to the third question. That is right. It is an F. The Prime Minister has decided to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time since its inception 34 years ago. This legislation gives the government unprecedented power and control over the lives of Canadians, and it should only be used in the most exceptional of circumstances. It should not be used where existing laws are sufficient. The threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has simply not been met. It is not even close. This is a clear case of government overreach. So far, the Prime Minister and his ministers cannot even articulate a coherent reason. The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation is such that it: (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. The Emergencies Act is there to address certain types of extreme threats to Canada only when all other existing options will just not work The act is not there to allow the Prime Minister to arbitrarily, and without reason, curtail the rights of all citizens. The Prime Minister says that the issues that have arisen over the past three weeks cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. Experts disagree, saying that existing Criminal Code provisions are sufficient, and extraordinary powers are an overreach. Here is an example. The justice minister is justifying the Emergencies Act as needed to compel tow truck drivers to remove illegally parked vehicles, but there is a problem with that. Paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code already gives the police this power. It applies to anyone who: omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, The Criminal Code also already contains other sections that address unlawful assembly, harassment, intimidation and mischief. Our country has experienced many crises in the last 30 years that were resolved without the need for Emergencies Act overrides. It was not invoked during the 2008 financial crisis. It was not invoked during the Oka crisis in 1990. It was not invoked in the aftermath of the Ottawa shootings that tragically ended the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in 2014. It was not invoked during 9/11. It was not during invoked in 2020, when rail crossings were being blocked across the country for weeks on end, disrupting supply chains, the delivery of goods and livelihoods. It has not been invoked to deal with the opioid crisis. Most recently, it was not used during the greatest crisis that this country has faced since the Second World War, which is the COVID pandemic. In fact, it was not even used last week to clear the Ambassador Bridge, the Emerson border crossing or, for that matter, any other crossing. The crossings were clearly cleared peacefully, without violence and under existing laws. Why invoke the Emergencies Act? Why suspend the rights of all Canadians? Sadly, we do not know why. The Prime Minister will not tell us his reason for this historic and unfettered power grab. It is clear the the Prime Minister has lost of control of this situation and is desperate to save his political skin. Yes, the sunny ways of 2015 have given way to the dark, cloudy haze of 2022. He has lost control, and we should not be surprised in the slightest. Here is why. When a government reduces sentences for serious offences, as this government has, when a prime minister tries to cut his friends at SNC-Lavalin a special deal to avoid criminal prosecution, when a government abandons the fundamental adherence to the rule of law, when certain politicians call to defund the police and the Prime Minister does not even immediately and strongly repudiate that terrible idea, what happens? What happens is lawlessness, and that is what has happened here. That is right: lawlessness. Parliament has been surrounded by trucks that have blockaded the streets of Ottawa, cut off the free flow of traffic, made downtown residents' lives miserable, subjected them to honking noises 24-7, shut down businesses and cost people their livelihoods, all because of the weak policies of the Prime Minister. As we have seen in Coutts, Windsor, Surrey and even in my home province of Manitoba, law enforcement has been able to peacefully clear border protests through negotiations without resorting to any Emergencies Act provisions. In fact, Manitoba and many other provinces are telling the Prime Minister that this step simply is not necessary and may even inflame the situation. However, the government is insisting on triggering this draconian legislation that dramatically expands the ability of the state to interfere in the private lives of Canadians, a law that includes requiring banks to freeze an individual's bank account without due process. The fact of the matter is that the governments in the different provinces already have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests. This was confirmed last week when the Minister of Emergency Preparedness actually said that police already had all the tools and resources they needed. Why then, a few days later, invoke the Emergencies Act? This is a prime minister who thought it was a good idea to take an all-expenses-paid trip to the Aga Khan's island, a prime minister who embarrassed Canada by dancing through India with a known terrorist, a prime minister who paid $10 million to Omar Khadr and who gave his friends at WE Charity a $500-million contract in exchange for $500,000 in speaking fees for his family. This is a prime minister who has been cited, not once but twice, by the Ethics Commissioner for ethics violations; who tried to pressure the first indigenous Attorney General in our history to cut a special deal for his friends at SNC-Lavalin, to go easy on them because of criminal charges they faced; who pretends to be a feminist while removing strong women of colour from his caucus for simply disagreeing with him; who flew to Tofino for a vacation on the very first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, after spending years pretending to care about reconciliation; who personally mocked indigenous protesters for simply wanting clean drinking water; and who spent years dressing up in blackface, so many times he cannot recall how many times he did it. Now, just last week, in response to a reasonable question, he shamefully said to the hon. member for Thornhill, who is Jewish, that Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas and people who wave Confederate flags. What an insult to the member, to the Jewish community, to the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust, and to the brave Canadians who served in World War II and helped defeat the Nazis. To make matters worse, he has refused to apologize. Such comments and actions are far, far beneath the office of the Prime Minister. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe any illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. However, the actions of the Prime Minister, of invoking the Emergencies Act, could have the exact opposite effect. The great American poet Maya Angelou wrote, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Canadians should heed this advice. I ask again, how can someone so irresponsible be entrusted with such great responsibility as the invocation of the Emergencies Act? The answer is simple: They cannot.

1426 words

All Topics

Hon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 4:20:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will note that the member from Winnipeg described his party as the party of law and order and, earlier in his speech, described how lawlessness was occurring in downtown Ottawa. He is right. Lawlessness has occurred over the last three weeks. The Rideau Centre mall, for example, has been closed for approximately three weeks. It is a shame, because, had we all worked together, we could have avoided that. The hon. member's interim leader advocated, in internal discussions, refusing to ask the demonstrators to go home. I quote from an email she sent: “I don't think we should be asking them to go home. I understand the mood may shift soon. So we need to turn this into the PM's problem.” Can the member comment on that?

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Marty Morantz

Feb/19/22 4:21:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the important things about debate is that we need to stay on point. The real point of debate today is whether or not the threshold has been met for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. That threshold is that these matters “cannot be...dealt with under any other law of Canada.” That threshold simply has not been met. In fact, international affairs professor Leah West at Carleton University said that she does not think the act applies. She said, “I have serious doubts that this definition is met.” When the leader of the NDP speaks about this, it sounds like he would rather go to the dentist than vote for this legislation. I really think we need to stay on point, and I do not believe the threshold has been met.

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/19/22 4:22:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member who just spoke criticized the opposition by saying that if everyone had worked together, we would not find ourselves in this position today. I am astonished. I would like my colleague to tell us how many proposals and suggestions have been made in the past three weeks by the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, so we would not find ourselves in this position today. Does he think it appropriate for the government to criticize the opposition for a lack of governance?

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Marty Morantz

Feb/19/22 4:22:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said as justification for triggering this draconian legislation that it is not “the first, second or third” thing he would do, but when asked what the first, second and third things were that he actually did, he is unable to answer, as are his ministers. It is a very valid question. I do not know how we got from A to Z without reading the rest of the alphabet in between.

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/19/22 4:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, two kilometres from me is the Ambassador Bridge in my riding. Things are not normal. Trucks are lined up and going slower than before. There is now a section of the city where the barriers on Huron Church Road are stopping citizens from getting to businesses, some of which are still closed; children cannot get to doctor appointments, and there are a series of other problems. We have asked the Province of Ontario and the federal government to financially compensate the city. We just had another convoy turned back the other day. What intelligence can the member provide that will secure the border of 14 kilometres between the bridge and Highway 401? How does the Conservative Party know that there is no imminent threat, when there was one just a couple of days ago?

136 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34