44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 11:39:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, while it is a privilege to have the opportunity to rise and speak in this place to the motion put forward by the government, the absolute seriousness of these days and how we chart a path forward as a nation cannot be overstated. There is so much at stake. I am grateful for the insightful interventions that have already been put forward by my caucus colleagues.
From the outset, I want to assure my constituents that I have heard them and I want them to know that I will be voting against this motion. I believe this action taken by the government is unnecessary, divisive and a dramatic overreaction given the circumstances. At a time when provincial governments and other countries have ended COVID-19 restrictions or announced plans to end them, the Prime Minister is an exception to the trend and is out of step.
When Conservatives brought forward a reasonable motion calling on the federal government to table a plan outlining the steps and dates as to when federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions would be rolled back, a plan that would reduce the temperature and address the concerns of Canadians across the entire country, the Prime Minister refused, and the Liberals, together with the NDP, defeated our motion.
This crisis was entirely preventable and is the result of the Prime Minister's unwillingness to use common sense. Instead of taking action to help lower the temperature, he insulted and disrespected Canadians. Instead of respecting Canadians, he doubled down on his efforts to wedge, divide and stigmatize. Instead of apologizing and listening to what Canadians had to say, he jumped straight to the most extreme measures to deal with the protests and invoked the Emergencies Act.
I want to thank the hundreds of constituents who emailed and called my office over the past week regarding the matter we are discussing tonight. Less than 1% support the government's actions. Almost everyone is shocked and disappointed by the Prime Minister's invocation of the Emergencies Act. They understand that imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act sets a dangerous precedent, especially when the Prime Minister has made no other efforts to de-escalate the situation.
I would like to read an email from a constituent, which is representative of the hundreds of messages I have received. Kathy wrote the following: “I am emailing you in regard to the Prime Minister's irrational invoking of the emergency measures act. I have read that the Emergencies Act can only be invoked if the situation cannot be dealt with through any other lawful manner in Canada. Considering the fact that the Prime Minister has not even sat down with the freedom convoy organizers to discuss removing all mandates, there is no need to invoke such an act. It has become very clear that the Prime Minister does not care about Canadians or our rights and freedoms. Many other countries have removed all mandates and restrictions and have come to realize that COVID has run its course. We need to get back to our lives and begin the massive job of rebuilding not only our economy, but mending all the division that the Prime Minister has created over the past two years. It breaks my heart to see all the families and friends being driven apart by this. As your constituent, I ask that when the Prime Minister goes before Parliament to seek approval of the Emergencies Act that you do not approve this. Please help us in our fight to make Canada free again.”
To be clear, while I have heard from hundreds of my constituents, there have also been messages from hundreds of Canadians from across the country. They are worried about the future for their children and their grandchildren. Ultimately, they are concerned for the future of their beloved Canada.
Many legal experts also oppose this action on the grounds that the test for invoking the Emergencies Act has not been met. A Twitter thread on February 14 by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was damning of the government's decision:
The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation "seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada" & when the situation "cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada."
Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.
Many legal experts and organizations across Canada echo these concerns and believe that invoking this act is unnecessary and sets a dangerous precedent.
Let us compare events in our not so distant past with the current situation. Two years ago there were a series of blockades on major rail lines and at the port of Vancouver. From January to March of 2020, protesters and their supporters across Canada who were opposed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline caused much economic hardship to the Canadian economy.
What is strikingly different about that protest two years ago and the one we are experiencing today is not the response of law enforcement but rather the response of the government. Two years ago, ministers of the Crown met with the protesters, listened to their issues and sought a peaceful resolution through dialogue. Granted, the police eventually moved in to clear the blockades, but it was obvious that all other avenues seeking a resolution had been exhausted.
Did that happen this time? Certainly not. What have these protesters received from the Liberal government? Insults, divisiveness and stigmatization. The Prime Minister's rhetoric during and since the election has poured fuel on the embers of distrust and division that were already smouldering. What we are seeing from this Prime Minister, his cabinet and his backbench is shocking. Their willingness to exploit the pandemic and divide Canadians, together with their overreach, is driving fear and concern for our future among my constituents and Canadians at large. This motion imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act will only exacerbate these feelings.
Furthermore, the Government of Canada should not have the power to close the bank accounts of hard-working Canadians simply on the suspicion that they support causes of which the government does not approve. This is a slippery slope and not how the government should operate in a free and democratic society.
Perhaps that is the whole point of this exercise, given the Deputy Prime Minister's comments yesterday when she stated, “For some of those tools, we will be putting forward measures to put those tools permanently in place. The authorities of FINTRAC, I believe, do need to be expanded to cover crowdsourcing platforms and payment platforms.”
The minister used her inside voice and revealed the true Liberal agenda.
Canada must not be defined by any one government, any one Parliament or any one person, but rather by our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values guide our institutions, through which are realized peace, order and good government. The pandemic has taken its toll on many of these institutions, largely because there was so much confusion and uncertainty in the beginning, planting the seeds of doubt and mistrust, but as we fast-forward two years, now the science and health experts are telling us that we have come through the worst of it and we need to re-evaluate and get back to normal.
Sadly, the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act is another huge blow to the already crumbling trust many Canadians have in our institutions. Parliament has an opportunity to repair some of the damage and defeat this motion.
I implore my colleagues to seize this opportunity and vote “nay”.
1350 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:50:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think I made it pretty clear why I am deeply concerned about the measures that are in this act that are going to seize and freeze the bank accounts of individuals who do not agree with the government, but to be equally clear, there is only one person who I believe bears the responsibility for what is happening in Ottawa, and that is the Prime Minister. What should we expect, when he calls those who do not agree with him misogynists, racists and science deniers, and wonders if such people should even be tolerated?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have to say that I believe this is exactly what the Prime Minister would like parliamentarians to be doing here in the House. Instead of focusing on the overreach of invoking the Emergencies Act, he wants us to be arguing about whose fault it is that the protests lasted for as long as they did in the city of Ottawa.
To be very clear, I firmly support the right to peaceful protest and the freedom of peaceful assembly, and I agree with the premier of my province, who called on the people of Saskatchewan to exercise their rights without impeding the rights of others. However, I will reiterate that I believe there is only one person who bears the responsibility—
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:53:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague that I absolutely disagree with the premise of that question.
First we had a leader who resigned back in 2019, and in this most recent case we had adopted the Reform Act, which is a law of Parliament that provides members of Parliament with the tools they need to hold their leader accountable, so that is exactly what happened within the Conservative caucus. I would say that rather than discussing the overreach of the government and the current Prime Minister in invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with something that could have been dealt with using the law and authorities in the City of Ottawa and in the Province of Ontario, the member is asking me about internal caucus issues.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
