44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 7:10:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has said that the Prime Minister is deliberately misleading Canadians, and he should know he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. It is pretty clear what he is trying to do indirectly in this case.
I would ask him to retract those comments, as it would be unparliamentary to leave them on the record.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:11:32 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise again on the same point of order. It is important that the member actually say for the record that he retracts the comments. He did not do that. He just attempted to continue to say it in a different way. He needs to say, “I retract the comments”.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:12:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I again have a point of order.
The member has not taken the Deputy Speaker's advice on two occasions now. Rather than answer the question, he is now attempting to engage in debate. The Deputy Speaker has an obligation to enforce the rules of this House, and I would encourage him to do so.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:29:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the previous engagement with the member for Brantford—Brant, he referenced the fact that this side of the House started to laugh when he said he was part of the party of law and order, and I want to read for him a quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, that it “supports the fundamental objectives of the invocation of the Emergencies Act that is intended to regulate and prohibit illegal public assemblies and lead to the breach of peace, and to restrict the funding of such illegal assemblies.” The party of law and order across the way does not even agree with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. That is why we find it remarkably funny, the position they have taken on this.
I am wondering if my NDP colleague can reflect on whether she also sees perplexing statements and positioning coming from the Conservative Party.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:14:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has referred to me as a despicable human being. I am pretty sure that is not parliamentary language. I would ask that you ask him to withdraw those comments, please.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:15:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our parliamentary rules say that we cannot call an individual names. Again, this member called me a despicable human being. He is required, under our proceedings, to apologize and withdraw that comment. I would ask you—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:48:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the member on her intervention today, which related to where she saw the underpinning of this movement. She has really hit the nail on the head with respect to that.
I was on the Wyatt Sharpe Show recently, which a lot of MPs have been on. Wyatt is a 13-year-old interviewer. I was on with the member's colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. On the show, I said that it was critically important that, when this measure was being put in place, Parliament was in a minority situation. That means that there has to be collaboration with at least one other party. It also ensures that proper tools can be exercised to reignite the debate in here at an appropriate time. It puts in the safeguards and it ensures that there is a certain level of accountability.
Can she expand on how important she thinks it is that we are doing this in a minority Parliament?
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:34:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can agree with one thing the member said: Historians will look back on this pivotal moment in time in this chamber. However, I imagine some who teach political history will reflect on the fact that by some twisted logic, the Conservative Party, which touts itself to be the party of law and order, throughout the entire siege of Ottawa and its aftermath, sided with those who broke the law.
Can the member please shed some light on how the party of law and order, the party of Brian Mulroney and Flora MacDonald, who brought this legislation into the House, is somehow siding and standing shoulder to shoulder with the occupiers, just not physically in the last few days?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:36:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am certainly not one to wade into how the politics in Quebec work, but I am pretty sure that there is not a single member in this House who ever thought the Bloc Québécois would vote in favour of this, just given its position, generally speaking, when it comes to national legislation like this.
Having said that, this member's attempt to conflate the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, just like the Conservatives have done, is disingenuous at best and an attempt to completely misinform the Canadian public at worst. This member should know full well that the War Measures Act actually removed civil liberties that were afforded to Canadians. This piece of legislation specifically states in it that the Charter of Rights must be upheld, which is the defining feature between this and the War Measures Act. How can this member continue to perpetuate this misinformation?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:52:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not entirely disagree with the comments from my colleague in the Bloc when she said a lot of people were caught up in this whose intentions were different from those who were on the path of the lawless behaviour that we have seen. However, I would say that the vast majority of those who were here in the week leading up to the police action that we saw in the last three days had by that point dug in their heels and were saying that they would not leave.
More importantly, we have heard a lot about how the powers were there and the provinces had the powers to do this or that. Yes, the provinces had the power to bring in other police forces, but they did not. The provinces did not do anything.
Is this member saying that it just happens to be a coincidence?
I would like to ask my question without being heckled.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:53:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is this member suggesting that it just happened to be a coincidence that the Emergencies Act came in on Monday and then we started to see real action on Thursday? Is that just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the emergency measures?
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:08:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this MP on February 4, referred to what is going on in Ottawa as “the Siege of Ottawa.” In the same tweet he said it is an “occupation controlled by radicals and anarchist groups.” Those are his words in a tweet from February 4.
However, many of his colleagues, in speech after speech, have referred to this as a protest with peaceful protesters. Will he at least acknowledge that he diverts from his colleagues who are calling this a peaceful protest? Does he still stand by his words that this was an occupation controlled by radicals and anarchist groups?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
