44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 6:11:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is without pleasure that I rise today to speak on the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Following my election as the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in 2019, we put signs throughout the riding with the slogan “building authentic relationships”. I realize this probably is not the catchiest slogan ever, but it demonstrates how my team and I have operated since.
Throughout the pandemic, my team and I have consistently and strategically attempted to be a voice that brings calm and reason to a very tumultuous environment. Personally, I believe that is what leaders should do. The failure of the Prime Minister to show even a shred of grace or compassion for people who are clearly frustrated is frankly unbecoming.
Some may ask why I start here. I start here because of what I have observed since entering federal politics just over three years ago. The Prime Minister and the federal government have shown absolutely no interest in building relationships with anyone, other than those who vote for them.
It is my belief that the moment the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada became the Prime Minister, he no longer had the option of only representing Liberal voters. It became his job to represent all Canadians. However, not only have the Prime Minister and his government shown no interest in representing all Canadians, but they have time and again shown disdain, contempt and disrespect for Canadians who do not agree with them.
Before I address my opinion on the government’s use of the Emergencies Act, it is important that we consider what actions, or inactions, have led to us being here today. As confirmed by our Liberal colleague for Louis-Hébert last week, during the last election campaign, the Liberals saw an opportunity to wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians over vaccines and vaccine mandates. They did this to get re-elected, and they were successful, but at what cost?
A poll taken just after the election showed that 77% of Canadians felt the country was more fractured than ever. I am fearful of what that number might be today. The politicization of vaccines and vaccine mandates by our Prime Minister has led to deep divisions in our communities, our provinces and across our country.
By treating Canadians with impunity, the Prime Minister laid the foundation for what happened just outside these walls in Ottawa and across our great nation. He called Canadians racists and misogynists. We have even heard Liberal members in the House this weekend call them terrorists. This is not acceptable. Might I add that this was before making any attempt whatsoever to meet or speak with them.
In my past life experience, in any kind of conflict resolution mechanism there was always one thing in common: dialogue. They all require some sort of dialogue and active listening. I was raised to believe that respect begets respect. I am, and will always be, willing to meet with Canadians, especially my constituents, regardless of their political leanings. The only limit I impose on them is that they must be willing to be respectful and have what I call “adult conversations”.
I believe that, had the Prime Minister and his government operated in this manner, we would not be having this debate tonight. In fact, I believe that not only would the protesters have left, but they would likely have never come here in the first place. Unfortunately, because of the government’s offensive rhetoric, several blocks surrounding Parliament Hill were indeed gridlocked and people had to forcefully be removed.
I have consistently said that when individuals cross lines of acceptable and legal behaviour, they should be called out and individually held accountable for their actions, but we cannot paint everyone with the same brush.
Let me share something I read from a blog last night. The writer explains that he lives in downtown Ottawa and defines it as “absolute ground zero”. The truckers are literally camped out below his bedroom window. He read a lot about what his new neighbours, he calls them, are supposed to be like, mostly from reporters. He decided to go for a walk to find out who these people actually were. He stated the following:
As I finally made my way back home, after talking to dozens of truckers into the night, I realized I met someone from every province except P.E.I. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians.... Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob.
He concludes a long blog with the following statement:
...what we should have never forgotten: We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.
This brings me to the second part of my speech, and that is how I believe the current situation in Ottawa does not fit the requirements outlined in the Emergencies Act.
During the introduction of the Emergencies Act in 1988, the minister responsible, the Hon. Perrin Beatty, said this in his remarks:
The legislation for second reading which I am proposing today will provide the necessary flexibility to respond to national crises without invoking the War Measures Act. It applies only to national emergencies and distinguishes between four types.
In broad terms they are these: First, situations affecting public welfare and caused by an accident such as a massive chemical spill or by natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or tornadoes that are of such magnitude as to exceed the capacity of the affected province to respond and to require special powers for an effective federal response; second, public order disturbances that threaten the security of Canada and which are so serious as to be national emergencies; third, international emergencies requiring Canada to take special preparatory measures in concert with our allies; fourth, and finally, war itself.
The order in council released by the government authorizes the government to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.”
The Prime Minister is essentially asking the House to hand him unlimited authority. We have seen this movie before. Do people remember March 2020, when the Liberals introduced an unprecedented bill to give their government unlimited powers to tax Canadians and spend public money without parliamentary approval for 21 months? Do people remember the documents from the Winnipeg lab, and how the Prime Minister's actions showed he has little or no respect for parliamentary oversight? Let us not forget how the SNC-Lavalin scandal demonstrated that he has little respect for the independence of our justice system.
More recently, on Monday, when the Prime Minister announced he was invoking the Emergencies Act, he said the following:
I want to be clear. The scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.
Since then, the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister has stated that she is looking to make some of these provisions permanent.
The justice minister admitted that the Liberals were looking to use the act to punish political opponents. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said that the Emergencies Act provisions technically apply to all of Canada. Why should Canadians trust this Prime Minister now and grant this open-ended request to limit the civil liberties of all Canadians?
Today, I join with the premiers of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, as well as with Premier Scott Moe from my province of Saskatchewan, along with many legal experts, civil liberties associations and millions of regular Canadians across the country saying that while the situation in Ottawa has been very difficult for many people, and I have a great amount of compassion for them, it did not meet the standard of a national emergency. Thankfully, there was no widespread violence and no loss of life.
The Prime Minister said, in his remarks at the opening of this debate, “the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada.” I do not believe this to be true, and for the Prime Minister to say this in the House of Commons leads to the degradation of our democratic systems and erodes the already low level of trust in government. The precedent that this sets is leaving many people in my riding with grave concerns for the future of our country.
Far be it from me to quote an NDP MP, but tonight I am going to because the Hon. Tommy Douglas was from Saskatchewan. In describing Pierre Elliott Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis, he said it was “like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”. I am sure that my colleagues from all parties would agree that what happened outside these walls pales in comparison with what took place in 1970. I implore my NDP colleagues to consider their roots and consider what the great Tommy Douglas would do if he were here in the House at this moment in time.
In closing, there is no easy way to put this. The division that has resulted from this pandemic has been heartbreaking. I have seen it divide our country, provinces, communities, workplaces, social clubs, churches, friendships and even our families. I am afraid that the Prime Minister's use of these heavy-handed measures will only further divide our country.
Thus, I am asking all members in the House to search very long and very hard when they decide how they are going to vote on this motion tomorrow night. Let us work together to start healing the brokenness that is so evident across this great country.
1650 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:22:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have worked together with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and we have a mutual respect.
What I and every single Conservative colleague would say is that we are 100% against any white supremacy, bigotry and any kind of racism. The member knows that very well and he knows my record on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. If he looked at the work I have done advocating for first nations people and for Métis people in my riding, for indigenous people across this country, he knows that to be true. If he looked at the work I have done coaching minor league hockey in my riding, coaching kids from across the riding and from first nations and Métis communities, he knows the work I have done and he knows my record.
I am happy to stand by that record.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:23:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like I said in my comments, the first step to resolving this was to actually listen to people and to have dialogue with people. That is the root of any conflict resolution mechanism. It was known for weeks that these people were coming to Ottawa, yet no one went to talk to them. The Prime Minister claimed in his comments that he has supported and met with all levels of government and all people involved in this, and that he was very in tune with what was going on, yet the Liberals did nothing until they brought out the Emergencies Act.
I will go back to my “sledgehammer and a peanut” argument. We went from zero to a hundred overnight and this was never necessary, as taking initial steps to dialogue with these people and hearing the concerns of these, very frankly, frustrated people would have gone a long way to resolving this issue a long time ago.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:25:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would go back to my initial comments I made in my speech and the work that my team and I have done in our riding. It is a slogan and everyone will say it is just a slogan, but building authentic relationships with people actually works. It actually works. We have to become active listeners. We have to engage people at the appropriate level, and we have to dialogue with people.
We have to get to the place where we can have what I call adult conversations with people, even though we might not agree with their philosophy. Maybe we do not agree with their ideology. If we have adult conversations, respectful conversations, sometimes it is appropriate for us to agree to disagree, but we can do that respectfully.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
