SoVote

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

Feb/19/22 6:26:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot of laws could have been used but were not used. We ended up with an occupation that went on for three weeks. What laws could have been invoked to get tow truck drivers to pull trucks away when they were refusing?

45 words

All Topics

Ms. Leslyn Lewis

Feb/19/22 6:26:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe section 129 of the Criminal Code could have been utilized to get tow truck drivers to remove vehicles from the streets, so we did have sufficient mechanisms in our criminal laws to deal with that issue. Therefore, the Emergencies Act was unnecessarily invoked.

47 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Feb/19/22 6:26:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to have the opportunity to address the House of Commons, especially in this seminal moment in Canadian history. I did not want to do it this way, but I did come back to my riding. I thought it important to understand very clearly what the national emergency was, and I will come to that more in the rest of my intervention. There are many difficulties with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and to be debating something that has already happened is somewhat counterproductive. However, that will be an important part of the mandatory review of the entire process as we go forward. The two main issues, as I see them, really boil down to how we got here and what the justification is for the Emergencies Act. There are those here who wish to muddy the waters as to the legal justification for using the Emergencies Act, and I do believe that there are people out there who have that very important skill set. That will form part of the review as well. The question we need to start with is how we got here, and this, in my mind, has been the most dismal display of leadership I have ever seen. As many in the House have been, I have been a part of sporting teams, committees and leadership positions in the medical community, and I have served in the Royal Canadian Air Force. One thing that is very crystal clear is that when we encounter those who do not fully agree with our position or support what we think is important, then that moment in time represents a significant opportunity for dialogue. Also, as a physician, I think the opportunity to discuss options and negotiate with patients presented itself to me on a daily basis, and I will be so crass as to say that this is communications 101. Since the beginning of this pandemic, I have been shocked and appalled with respect to the language used by the Prime Minister when commenting upon those who have been vaccine-hesitant. I have been concerned about vaccine hesitancy since the beginning of the pandemic, and certainly I took the opportunity to review the scientific literature on the topic of vaccine hesitancy. There are innumerable papers, and I have had the opportunity to review them, and there was absolutely no mention of division, stigmatization or name-calling. The language used in these scientific papers would be more along the lines of building relationships, building trust and understanding the other person's position. Chris Voss, who is a famous FBI negotiator, during one particularly difficult case, spoke through an apartment door for six hours with no response. In the end, the fugitives and the hostages emerged suddenly. The fugitives commented, “you calmed us down.... We finally believed you wouldn't go away, so we just came out.” I think it is important people know I have been in Ottawa for the last three weeks, since the protests began, and every day I walked to work. I realize, as has been brought forward by others, I am a white man. I understand that. I have never been accosted, accused or threatened. I wear a mask, but sadly, Canadians who do not agree with the Prime Minister have been vilified, stigmatized and called names. Let us keep that in mind. Even on Wednesday evening just past, I left my office at the corner of Bank and Wellington, and I walked all the way up to the Byward Market during the protest. Indeed, I did not feel unsafe. Nobody even spoke to me. Was this a public order emergency? Certainly, I do believe there are other avenues to deal with this situation, and certainly, as I have mentioned previously, I returned here to Nova Scotia and there is absolutely no public order emergency here. Life is going on as normal, and I think parliamentarians portraying what is going on in Ottawa as a public order emergency are a little misguided. This isolated issue here in Ottawa does not a national emergency make. I have heard many Liberal colleagues talking about how dangerous or scary—

700 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/19/22 6:31:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I did not realize this was a meeting room. They are having a meeting and talking so loud we cannot hear—

30 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 6:31:24 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is calling a point of order on noise. I was speaking with the clerk and I did not hear any noise. I do invite the members, if they want to have conversations, to go into the lobbies or behind the curtains. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

53 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/19/22 6:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all I did was say to my colleague that the members of the official opposition feel that all they have to do is click their heels and wave a wand and, poof, the protesters will disappear. I said that in a very low voice. I did not even think anyone could hear it. It was more of a whisper. However, if I offended people with respect to their—

71 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 6:32:28 p.m.
Watch

It seems that it was loud enough to bother the members who were trying to listen to the speech, so I request that members keep as quiet as possible and respect when other people are speaking. The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

43 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Feb/19/22 6:32:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, lots of words come to mind about that negative interruption. The way the member put the words of his interruption into the record is disturbing. It is interesting how the Liberal colleagues often talk about how dangerous or scary the protest is, yet I do not think any of them even walked into the protest. When I was at the health committee one day, it ended early because my colleagues were scared to go out in the dark. Further failures of leadership are clear. Documents have been made available to us in which the Prime Minister convened a first ministers' meeting. Its proposed agenda was to consult premiers on whether to declare this a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act. The documents reveal that the opinions of the premiers were given in confidence. However, since then their positions have been made clear. The Premier of Quebec did not think it was beneficial. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were opposed. I could find no comments for the Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunavut. If in that consultation the opinions of seven of the 10 premiers were ignored, why bother having it? As has been pointed out repeatedly, there never has been nor will there be any consultation by the Prime Minister or any of his government officials with the protesters. I will repeat that for the House and all Canadians. The Prime Minister has never spoken to any of the protesters who were there previously and now he has decided to employ and access the Emergencies Act. Besides the Prime Minister's dismal approval rating, what is the emergency? What steps could have been taken before the government enacted the Emergencies Act that would have made this right, so that Canadians could believe that some suspension of their rights and freedoms would be appropriate? A public order emergency is described as a “threat” to Canada's security, including acts of espionage and sabotage; “foreign influenced activities” that are detrimental to Canadian interests; terrorist activities; and efforts to covertly or by violence overthrow the constitutional structure of the country. Lawful advocacy, protests, demonstrations and similar activities are not included. I think I made it clear that walking through the protests I did not feel unsafe. This public order emergency has given the federal government significant overreach with respect to potentially accessing the bank accounts of not only those involved in the civil disobedience but of those who may have donated to the cause. As we have heard before, does that mean if one were to donate $5 or $10, that person's assets would be frozen? If relatives of a leader of a party in this House had donated to the cause would their assets be frozen? I wonder. Bloomberg News described it that “banks would be required to report relationships with people involved in blockades and would be given the authority to freeze accounts without a court order, among other measures.” I spoke to Daniel the other day, who is now afraid to donate to any charity and he is now afraid his bank account may be frozen and he will not be able to pay his mortgage. He wonders if these new powers will continue to be used for other causes that raise funds if the government does not agree with their values. He is a proud Canadian with three Canadian flags in his yard. From the current government we have seen travel restricted, cellphone data collected, military propaganda used domestically, bank accounts frozen and now the Emergencies Act invoked. If those are not multiple infringements upon the civil liberties and the Charter of Rights of Freedoms of Canadians, what is? Canada is now at a crossroads with its democracy. We have a Prime Minister who chooses to vilify, stigmatize and traumatize Canadians with different opinions. The government has declared a public order emergency with the disagreement of seven of 10 premiers and indeed the vast majority of our country outside of Ottawa has no evidence of a public order emergency. We have seen law enforcement agencies successfully deal with the frustrations that have boiled over at the Ambassador Bridge and a multitude of other border crossings without the Emergencies Act. We also heard about the massive disruptions these blockades at border crossings have caused and the damage that has done to our economy. However, I cannot fathom that the finance minister tells us how great the economy is at the current time, despite our 5.1% inflation rate and Canadians being priced out of their own lives, all of which was in existence before the last three weeks. There is absolutely no reason the Emergencies Act cannot be rescinded post-haste and the madness stopped. It is sad that an ideological coalition has the potential to allow the act to continue for up to another 30 days. The left wing thinks that its position is perfectly fine, and there is no issue with that. These people, who wanted to protest, were ignored. That is the sad reality of how we ended up here.

858 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/19/22 6:38:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting. All day long, I have been hearing Conservatives talk about the need for the Prime Minister to engage in dialogue and discussion with the occupiers outside, yet I find it interesting that Jason Kenney, the premier of Alberta, did not engage with the protesters at Coutts. Premier Doug Ford did not engage with the protesters or those who were blocking the bridge in Windsor. Premier Stefanson of Manitoba did not engage with those who were blocking in Manitoba. Does the hon. member think that all leadership should engage with the protesters or that just Liberal leadership should engage with protesters?

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Feb/19/22 6:38:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is fascinating that even the Liberals recognize that the Prime Minister has not spoken or created any dialogue with the protesters. I have to say I think that is shameful and it is quite honestly ridiculous. How can that member opposite possibly say that because someone else does something wrong, they can continue to do wrong things and that makes it right? Wow, my mom taught me that when I was a kid.

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/19/22 6:39:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech. He has demonstrated that the government did absolutely nothing, or very little, before declaring an emergency. This leaves the impression that this emergency declaration is basically an attempt to save face for the government and the Prime Minister, who did absolutely nothing for some 20 days. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Feb/19/22 6:39:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc for understanding the untenable situation we are in and the ridiculous nature of using this act. It is very clear that the Prime Minister is attempting to save his approval ratings, which are dismal at the current time and will continue to fall as Canadians realize that he does not represent the true nature of what it is to be a Canadian.

68 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/19/22 6:40:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have said it before and I will reiterate it again: It should have never come down to this. The occupiers that have held downtown Ottawa hostage for weeks made it clear that this was their intention from the onset, yet the government did nothing. The member opposite may agree that, instead of showing clear and strong leadership on a path forward, the Prime Minister was missing in action. Now here we are. We have rolled out a red carpet for those who feel it reasonable to overthrow our democratic system. This is an occupation fuelled by hate, disguised as a peaceful protest. Does the member agree now is the time for action?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Feb/19/22 6:41:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with everything up to the point where she talked about how the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing. That is obviously, patently true. That point is really important. The difficulty here, as I pointed out in my speech, is the question of how we got here. We got here because of this terrible, unbelievably poor leadership and if we did not have that, we would not have had to come here. I guess I am concerned that perhaps this pathway was as planned out by the Prime Minister as the protest was.

96 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Feb/19/22 6:41:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given that the Deputy Prime Minister, the prime minister-in-waiting, has opined that she would like to make aspects of the Emergencies Act permanent, such as the expansion of FINTRAC over more control of people's bank accounts and transactions, and given that the thresholds were not met to invoke the Emergencies Act, does the hon. member think, perhaps, the reason for invoking the act was to acquire some expanded, broadened powers permanently and that was the true goal of casting the country into this situation?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Feb/19/22 6:42:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly, as I just mentioned previously, that is a concern that I would have as a concerned Canadian citizen. If one is a leader and does nothing and ends up with a ham-fisted approach, was that perhaps the whole raison d'être from the very beginning? I think that is very possible. I think that Canadians not only want the Liberals off of our backs but we also want them out of our pocketbooks as well.

80 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 6:43:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

11 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/19/22 6:43:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been very patient and I rarely raise points of order, but something that the member for Cumberland—Colchester said really offends me as a parliamentarian and I am going to give him an opportunity to retract his statement. He belittled members and fellow parliamentarians who are members of the health committee for their reluctance to exit a committee in the dark during the midst of this protest. Although he has gone on at length to explain how he has been unaffected by these protests and feels quite comfortable with them, clearly residents of Ottawa and other parliamentarians do not. I am going to give him an opportunity to retract that statement and clarify, for the record, that he would not want to belittle the subjective feelings of fellow parliamentarians and members of this House, how they perceive this protest and what it represents to them.

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Sean Casey

Feb/19/22 6:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on that same point of order, I am the chair of the health committee. Not only did the member belittle members of the committee, but what he said was not true. He knows full well that in order to adjourn a meeting, it requires the consent of the committee or a vote. There was an early adjournment of the meeting. There was absolutely no reference to anyone being afraid of the dark, and what he did was highly inappropriate.

81 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 6:44:43 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

7 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 34