44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 8:48:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. That is the deal.
From the early stages of the pandemic to a protest that has become the target of the sledgehammer that is the Emergencies Act, the government has failed in every way to plan for events that it had ample opportunity to be ready for. It has dismally planned to fail.
Before COVID-19 we had SARS, a precursor to the pandemic that should have given us a road map for what could come, but it did not. From a dismal lack of stockpiling of PPE to the completely inadequate health care capacity of our whole system to the failure to produce a single drop of vaccine two years in, Canada was not ready for what became the biggest spend of money in all Canadians' lifetimes combined.
What will we see in the next decade? Misspending has created the largest inflation in 30 years, gas prices are now over $1.80 in some parts of the country, and grocery bills are crippling our families.
The government did what the government had to do when there was no plan: It intervened. The problem with the government taking total control is that it hates to lose the control that it has gained.
Let us switch gears to the protests here in Ottawa. The convoy drove from west to east, making its way slowly across the country while making it well known that it was not happy with the mandates. In every town it entered, it was met with thousands of Canadians who supported it, feeling hopeful for change. Canadians had their own reasons for supporting it, but the common thread was the need for change, for hope and for the end of suffering.
The government had fair warning. People were coming and they were unhappy. The government had ample time to listen to the people and create a plan, a road map out of this pandemic, that Canadians so desperately needed. However, instead of listening and seeing what other countries that had had fourth waves ahead of us were doing, on January 7 our health minister said that he saw more mandates coming.
There was Quebec's tax on health and the continued PCR testing that the WHO said was unnecessary. There was and has been no scientific medical data to back up these mandates, just as there was no data to prove that the Prime Minister was correct in suggesting that interprovincial passports for truckers were absolutely necessary.
Instead of listening and creating a safe, responsible plan, the government took a heavy hand, threatening more mandates and belittling Canadians for expressing their displeasure.
The Ottawa police, the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police had all the time they needed to prepare for trucks coming downtown, but let us be honest: There was no plan. An article in the National Post on Saturday stated that the Ottawa police's plan was that the trucker protest would last just a weekend. When police were overwhelmed, they still did not announce an emergency. The following week, they became more indecisive. The police chief stated that he believed protesters would dissipate on their own. It was a failure to plan.
Especially, there was no plan from the federal government to address this larger group or manage any elements of lawlessness. There was absolutely no plan to understand that this was not just a fringe element, but a larger movement of ordinary Canadians simply looking for hope from somebody, anybody, as we in the world continually reach the last phases of the pandemic and the beginning of an endemic. It was a larger group that had no affiliation with hate, intolerance or lawlessness. We only had to listen to and speak to many of those screaming to be heard, or see the messaging from our constituencies.
Most of all, it was a failure of the Prime Minister.
We must all remember just one thing in the House, and that is whom we work for, whom we represent and whom we answer to. When we forget that, and it feels like the government has forgotten it, we find a divided country. A divided country allows our country to be weak on the world stage, weak in future planning and weak to those who look to us for a path forward.
The Prime Minister made a choice, and that choice ignored Canadians when they most needed a leader to hear from. Here are some of the voices from Bay of Quinte in the last few weeks.
My son struggles after COVID19 to the point where he has completely broken down. He can no longer play with friends and he has no interest in even attending school.
I had a major reaction to the first vaccine where I cannot mentally get the second and cannot get a medical exception. I am at the verge of breaking down every day and have never had so little hope.
I donated $30 to the trucker convoy not because of any other reason than I wanted hope and an end to mandates. I’m a single mother and I’m afraid my bank account will be frozen, and I will be detained.
I am currently a teacher. I am speaking on behalf of children that are being masked all day long. They cannot breathe. They are not developing social skills with one another that they should be. The language development in several of my senior kindergarten students are being stunted because of masks.
This is after we should be celebrating what we have done as a country, a country that is 90% vaccinated, a country that has all the opportunity in front of it for a prosperous future and a country that can start to heal from its wounds.
As COVID‑19 wanes, what is left today is a country in shambles. What remains is a country divided, leaving generations of mistrust in government. When a government divides and conquers, once trust is broken, it is almost impossible to build it back. Mothers, daughters and sons have contacted us in the last few weeks. There has been massive trauma experienced as a result of COVID‑19. Domestic abuse and mental health issues have gone through the roof.
The question for the government is this: Why are your politics more important than the heart of this nation? We keep creating division when we should be healing. We cannot keep fighting across the aisle, slinging mud and acting like it is helpful. Canadians need us to meet them with an open heart, acknowledge the pain and trauma they have suffered throughout this pandemic and do all we can to be a light after this dark tunnel. It is time to say that we are sorry, right our wrongs, start mending our country and build trust again.
The government did what it had to do at the beginning of the pandemic: It intervened because it had no plan. There have been countless consequences of that. Again, with no plan to deal with a prolonged protest in downtown Ottawa, the government is in another failure scenario with the Emergencies Act. We are against this act.
The actions taken these past three weeks in several locations in Canada are not an aberration, but rather a manifestation of the growing frustration Canadians feel with our federal government and its inability to truly listen to Canadians and put them ahead of its overreach. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is a slap in the face to all Canadians and not a proud moment in our country’s history.
Even if the need for law enforcement is justified to bail out those who failed to plan, it is the financial overreach that has me most concerned. The law must be predictable and transparent, and the financial overreach of this act is not. Banks should not be and are not our nation’s prosecutors. There are laws now that ensure law enforcement can and will go after unlawful activities, but no Canadian who innocently donated to a cause because they wanted desperately to feel hope should feel maligned. Certainly no government looking at powers that allow financial information to be accessed should be allowed to make those changes permanent, as the Deputy Prime Minister made claim to this week.
The invocation of the Emergencies Act under these circumstances is an insult to all Canadians and certainly not a proud moment in our country’s history. Our nation needs to start healing now, and that is the only plan that we all need to get behind.
1443 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:19:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I, like my colleague from Whitby, saw thousands of Canadians standing on the overpasses as the convoys moved through. I thank him for mentioning that we should not be looking at those who are struggling as our adversaries; rather, we should be looking at them with mutual respect and sometimes a little compromise.
We know it was the flip-flop on the mandates for the truckers that sparked this, and I would ask my colleague this. I have looked for the science behind this. We have a 90% vaccination rate. I wonder if he has seen the science from before the mandates were in. The government operated without mandates for two years, so are they justified at this point in the pandemic? I watched the hon. member for Thornhill at the transport committee ask the transport minister that. He could not answer.
I know we follow the science, but there is a carve-out. We are allowing truckers to deliver vaccines across the border without the mandates right now, so I am wondering what the scientific justification is for the mandates now.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is indeed an emergency in this country. Indeed, there are a series of emergencies.
There is the emergency of the family whose 14-year-old daughter has attempted suicide after two years of isolation from sports, social interaction and other healthy activities that sustain a happy and heartful mind. There is the emergency of the federal public servant who, for unrecognized medical reasons, cannot get vaccinated and is now deprived of an income and a job. There is the emergency of the trucker who was hailed as a hero while driving our goods and services across international borders unvaccinated for over two years, who suddenly was declared a public health threat and deprived of his job as well. There is the emergency of the 32-year-old still living in his mom's basement, because under the pretext of COVID, the government printed so much money that it now costs $836,000 for the average house. There is the emergency of the single mother trembling as she walks down the grocery aisle because she cannot afford a basket of affordable goods, because the government has inflated her cost of living. There is the emergency created by the regulatory gatekeepers who keep people in poverty by blockading first nations people from the ability to develop their own resources and blockading immigrants from the ability to work in the very professions for which they are trained and qualified.
These are the emergencies we should be addressing, but instead the Prime Minister has created a new emergency. What is his motivation? Of course, it is to divide and conquer. How did this all start? Let us remember that the Prime Minister suddenly imposed a brand new vaccine mandate on the very truckers who had been free to travel across borders without a vaccine, and he did it at a time when provinces and countries around the world were removing vaccine mandates. He did it to a group of people who are by far the least likely to transmit a virus, because they work and sleep all by themselves 22 hours a day.
Media asked his health minister and his chief medical officer for evidence supporting the decision. Neither had any. In fact, the medical officer said it was time to return to normalcy, yet the Prime Minister, in spite of all these facts, brought in this new mandate to deprive people of their living, because he knew that it would spark in them a sense of desperation. If he could deprive them of their incomes, they would be so desperate that they would have to rise up and protest, and then he could further demonize them, call them names, attack their motives, belittle them and dehumanize them in order to galvanize the majority against the minority.
This must be the political opportunity his Deputy Prime Minister spoke about when she described what COVID represented to the government. The Liberals have attempted to amplify and take advantage of every pain, every fear and every tragedy that has struck throughout this pandemic in order to divide one person against another and replace the people's freedom with the government's power.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it started immediately. The government attempted to ram through a law that would have given it the power to raise any tax to any level for any reason without a vote in Parliament. It tried to pass Bill C-10 to strip away free speech online. Thankfully, Conservatives blocked it from doing so. The Prime Minister's authorities have said they want to track Canadian cell phones for the next five years. Now this, the Emergencies Act, is the latest and greatest example of attacks on our freedom.
Ostensibly, it was meant to stop blockades, which had already ended before he even brought forward this legislation. In Alberta, in Manitoba and at the Ambassador Bridge, those blockades were ended peacefully, in some cases with protesters hugging the police officers and bringing the matters to a successful close, so that goods and services could resume.
Instead, in that context, the Prime Minister brought in a law that not even Jean Chrétien brought in after 9/11 killed dozens of Canadians in a terrorist attack, that not even former prime minister Harper brought in when a terrorist murdered a Canadian soldier at the war monument and came running into Centre Block spraying bullets in all directions, and that not even the current Prime Minister brought in when blockades by first nations were standing in the way of those who were attempting to build the Coastal GasLink pipeline. For the first time in this law's three-decade history, the Prime Minister brings it in to address what he says was a protest in front of Parliament Hill.
Ironically, this power goes beyond any of the protests and/or blockades the Prime Minister claims to want to address. For example, it would allow governments and banks to seize people's bank accounts and money for donating to the wrong political cause. One journalist asked the justice minister if small sums donated, for example, to support an end to vaccine mandates could get someone's bank account frozen. The minister did not deny it. Instead, he said that people who make donations of that kind should be very worried.
To freeze people's bank accounts is not just an attack on their finances but on their personal security. If their bank accounts are frozen, they cannot buy food, they cannot buy fuel, they cannot pay their children's day care fees and, under this law, they can face this personal attack without being charged with a single, solitary crime.
The Prime Minister says that this is time-limited, yet his own finance minister said she wants some of the tools to be permanent. He said it will be geographically targeted, yet his own parliamentary secretary for justice said that “the act technically applies to all of Canada”. The rules apply everywhere and indefinitely.
Finally, there is nothing in the act that limits the kinds of financial actions that could lead to people's accounts being frozen, and if they are frozen unjustifiably, the act specifically bans people from suing either the bank or the government for that unjustifiable treatment, opening the door for people who have nothing whatsoever to do with either the blockades or the protest having their bank accounts frozen without cause.
The Prime Minister says he wants to do this to remove the blockades, blockades that have already been removed. He says he needs these unprecedented powers in order to bring our country's order back to the pre-protest period, although across this country that has already occurred.
I say to the House that I oppose this unjustifiable power grab and, as prime minister of Canada, I will ensure that no such abuse of power ever happens again.
However, I say that we should end some of these blockades. Let us—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:55:28 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.
I agree that we need to see a way out of the pandemic. I agree that we are in need of hope. Inuit, Métis and first nations were given hope by the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, when he gave an apology to former students of residential schools in 2008. That same government, the Conservatives, made cuts to important initiatives like the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
Is this the same hope the Conservatives are aspiring to give to Canadians?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:10:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I have always loved about this place, the people's House, is that it represents our great country of Canada. Each day we have the opportunity to listen to our colleagues and friends here in the House, who represent and serve their constituents from every corner of the country. This is the place where we come together to challenge and debate ideas by always putting Canadians first.
Canadians are hurting. It has been a long, hard two years. Families have lost loved ones and friends. Many had to say goodbye over Zoom, never getting to see their family, hold their hand or give them comfort. They have lost businesses, and health care and emergency professionals have been tirelessly fighting COVID-19 day in and day out for two years. Families, communities and Canadians have been fighting COVID-19 in their own way. The silent majority of Canadians understand that the past two years have been about a public health crisis. When Canadians are hurting, it is our job to work even harder to come together, to lose the rhetoric, to lower the temperature, especially during volatile times, and to find a better way forward for all of us, for our children and for our most vulnerable.
I think we can agree that our Constitution is founded on the values of peace, order and good government, and that people have the right to peaceful protest. I think we can also agree that the blockades have caused major damage to our economy. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge alone has affected about $390 million in trade each day. This bridge supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and the United States, our most important trading partner. In Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. In Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. These costs are real. They threaten businesses big and small, and they threaten the livelihoods of Canadian workers, just as everyone is working hard to recover from the economic damage caused by COVID-19.
I think we can agree that blocking trade routes, hurting the Canadian economy and preventing food and medicine from being delivered is not okay. Blocking life-saving ambulances, preventing cancer treatment appointments and the picking up of prescriptions, and forcing hospitals to take on extra security is not okay.
I think we can also agree emphatically that desecrating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is not okay, and that none of us ever wants to see a Nazi swastika flown anywhere in Canada. However, this sacred tomb has been desecrated. It is a place of national remembrance, a place that must be respected at all times. Nazi swastikas have been flown here and around Parliament Hill. This is not peaceful protest. Rather, these are heinous and incendiary acts that must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
The Nazi swastika symbolizes a regime that murdered six million Jews. It has an unimaginable and transgenerational impact on Holocaust survivors and on families that lost mothers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and loved ones. It is beyond disgusting and horrific that people would use symbols like the Nazi swastika, symbols that are like daggers, that are meant to hurt and meant to cause pain. In Germany, the public display of the Nazi swastika is punishable by jail time. It is our shared responsibility to remember those who suffered under the Nazi regime, to protect the truth, to confront those who seek to deny, to support research and documentation and to teach about the Holocaust so that education may prevent anti-Semitism and all forms of racism.
It is also our job to protect children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. On Friday, Ottawa police reported that protesters had put children between police operations and the unlawful protest site. No child should ever be put in harm's way, let alone in the middle of a demonstration where a police operation is unfolding.
Canadians do not want finger pointing. They do not want name-calling. They do not want blaming other levels of government. They want us to work together to put an end to this. Canadians understand that what was happening in Ottawa was no longer a lawful protest, but rather an illegal occupation. In fact, a national survey shows two-thirds of Canadians support the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and believe that it is time to restore order and peace in Ottawa.
As elected officials, our first responsibility is to protect those we serve. How would we feel if what we have been witnessing in Ottawa were happening in other communities that we serve? How would we feel if businesses, schools and vaccine clinics were closed? How would we feel if people were driving trucks around elementary schools and neighbourhoods, and swearing at and intimidating children? How would we feel if major arteries were blocked, access roads to airports were blocked or highly flammable materials were near campfires? How would we feel if public safety were threatened through deliberate acts of discrimination, displays of hate symbols, harassment, physical assault and vandalism?
On Friday, the gridlock in our capital city reached a sad climax when Ottawa police reported that protesters had assaulted officers and tried to remove their weapons. In response, city, provincial and federal law enforcement officers began an operation Friday morning to remove protesters along with their vehicles. One person was arrested after throwing a bicycle toward a police horse. By the end of yesterday, more than 170 were arrested and 53 vehicles were towed.
This unprecedented situation prompted the House to be shuttered Friday out of an abundance of caution, and it was agreed to by all political parties. Let us actually break that down a bit. While people talked about freedom and the importance of protecting freedom, on Friday, the freedom to speak in the House, the seat of our democracy, had to be suspended to protect the health and safety of everyone who works in the precinct.
All of us have heard from people in our communities with varying perspectives, but it is clear that the majority of Canadians want this to stop and that a majority support the Emergencies Act. The actions we have witnessed these past weeks go far beyond what we accept as free speech. The Nazi swastika and other hate symbols threaten democracy itself. Protests that embrace such symbols and that have connections outside our country threaten our democracy. How we choose to act in this chamber, what we choose to say and what we learn will really matter as we recover from COVID-19 and this illegal occupation.
My hope is that we will choose to make our flag a hopeful rallying point, with more and more people feeling they belong, they matter and they are included. We must choose to make our political dialogue peaceful and respectful and choose to think about how to regulate and prevent the spread of hate speech and other forms of misinformation. Canada's silent majority must be given a greater voice. After all, the silent majority is winning the war against the pandemic. Together, we must rebuild a better, brighter future for all.
1211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:24:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.
I have listened quite intently to the debate that has been ongoing on the question of the emergency measures act. While I am sometimes disappointed in the partisan and petty level of debate coming from the opposition benches, I think there are some things we can agree on as a House.
We can agree that all Canadians are protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it is our job as MPs in this House to protect those rights, including the right to expression, to peaceful assembly and to the safety and security of the person. We can agree that the majority of Canadians are frustrated and tired of this COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed the lives of over 34,000 Canadians.
We can agree that our Prime Minister did not create COVID-19 or this global pandemic. He and his government created measures to combat it, with the objective of protecting Canadians' health and safety. We can agree that a convoy of protesters drove for days, uninhibited, to Ottawa to protest various provincial and some federal regulations. For at least three weeks, they blocked major streets and were allowed to set up tents, speak their minds and express their feelings.
We can agree that the organizers of this convoy-turned occupation officially called for the fall of this democratically elected government and its replacement by people of their own choosing. We can agree that crowd-sourcing efforts raised millions of dollars for this occupation, and that over 50% of that funding came from foreign lands. We can agree that the Ambassador Bridge was blocked by these protesters for many days, causing hundreds of millions of dollars lost in trade per day, and that those losses still continue.
We can agree that lethal weapons were seized in Coutts, Alberta from protesters and over a dozen people were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. We can agree that children were used as shields in Ottawa and on the Ambassador Bridge. We also agree that Canada is a federation, with separation of powers outlined in our Constitution, and that those powers include policing powers, where provinces take leadership, including in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and so forth.
I have received thousands of emails from across Canada, and not just from my own riding, from people who are confused and scared. Some were repeating misinformation about what is happening in our country. My job as a member of Parliament is to listen to all voices in my riding and balance the diverse ideas into a consensus that I then represent in this esteemed House. I will continue to try to clear up some of that misinformation that has been disseminated irresponsibly by some in this very place.
This convoy does not represent all truckers, and it has been condemned by all major trucking organizations across Canada. I have heard from truckers living in Mississauga—Erin Mills, and they have expressed to me their disgust with the actions we are seeing from certain participants in the convoy. They pleaded with me not to judge them for the protesters' actions, because they do not represent them or their industry.
I do not believe that every person supporting these convoys has behaved in this way. For many, this was a way to express their frustration with the pandemic. The fact is that these incidents keep happening. They keep encroaching on the rights of Canadians, and it needs to stop. When it comes to this issue, the majority of Canadians do not care about a person's politics and they do not care about what colour a person's party is. This behaviour just cannot be defended and our citizens have demanded action.
When these convoys arrived in the GTA, the greater Toronto area, we saw that appropriate police action could minimize the harm and damage to local residents. We need to understand why Ottawa had so much trouble. I appreciate that the hard-working women and men of our police services and our federal government have been responding since day one with all the support we could provide under normal circumstances. To be honest, I am disappointed that the provincial and local leadership could not handle policing these demonstrations to ensure that Ottawa citizens were treated with respect and that our supply chains were secure.
After two weeks of what we saw here, the Premier of Ontario declared a state of emergency and called for greater tools from our federal government to take action, which could be administered only through the Emergencies Act. Instead of leaving Ontario out in the cold, our government is invoking this legislation, after careful consideration and after exhausting all other measures, to provide these greater tools to local authorities to address the situation.
We are taking action to keep Canadians safe, to protect people's jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. If we look outside, we will see that the emergency orders we are debating right now are already helping local law enforcement restore safety and a sense of normality to the streets of Ottawa.
After weeks on end of working day and night, they now have the tools they need to enforce the law, thanks to the federal government. Citizens should be able to walk freely without the fear of being harassed. They have the right to safety and security. Small businesses in the downtown core should be able to open their doors to the public again without fearing for their safety and that of their staff. These organizers have had weeks to address the hate symbols and disturbing statements, weeks to root out the participants who are putting the citizens of Ottawa in danger, weeks to leave and go home. They refused at every turn, and that is what brought us to today.
The Prime Minister has said this over and over again and I will say it once more. These measures are temporary. To be clear, the Emergencies Act does not involve the military and will not be used to limit people's freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
In fact, the Emergencies Act requires that any steps taken be reasonable and proportionate to the situation. There is a strict time limit of 30 days, unless the House votes to extend, and the House of Commons has the power to revoke these measures at any time. It will not prevent people from peacefully protesting. It will certainly not infringe on individual rights, which will always be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There must also be a joint review by Parliament, including the Senate, to ensure that all requirements under the act were followed and justified. Residents in Erin Mills have told me that they would expect such a review to also scrutinize the response of provincial and municipal governments and why they needed to kick this issue up to the federal government.
We must maintain the appropriate balance between Canadians' rights and their freedoms, including the right to peacefully protest. At the same time, we must protect the safety and well-being of Canadians and of our nation's supply chains. I assure my constituents that I will be the first to defend them against government erosion of their rights. I sincerely do not believe that these powers are abusive, and I sincerely do believe they will help to restore peace and order and the rule of law in our Canada.
I recognize that we are all tired of the pandemic and we are all tired of the public health measures that have separated us from our loved ones for over two years. We want life to go back to a semblance of normalcy, and that is what we are all working towards every single day.
Our government has already been loosening certain restrictions at the federal level that pertain to travel, and will continue to do so at a pace that ensures that Canadians' health and safety are protected.
If we are to live with COVID-19, then we need to make COVID-19 livable for everyone, especially vulnerable residents for whom this virus is a death sentence.
I am encouraging all of us to take a step back and start connecting with our residents on the ground rather than with spectators on social media, to take the time to clear up the misconceptions and misinformation that are beginning to fester in our grassroots. It is time we really talked about the real issues, and I am looking forward to spending time this coming week connecting with Erin Mills and celebrating Black History Month the way we should.
I look forward to hearing from constituents about our ongoing budget, which is our plan forward out of the pandemic and out of this economic downturn.
1483 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:54:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said it. How do we keep this going? We cannot forget. I mentioned in my speech the lessons that are to be learned from this and the whole pandemic experience. It really has exposed the deep crevices in our society, the inequality.
I know the member for Winnipeg Centre talked a lot about wealth inequality, particularly poverty. There are so many things we need to tackle, but the key is do it together. That is the unity I want to see in the House.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:46:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is truly a privilege and an honour to speak with the member for Yukon. With his background, which he referenced in his speech, I am tempted to ask him questions about where he thinks we are now in the pandemic, but I want to stick to the Emergencies Act.
The member clearly is someone who looks for evidence-based solutions. Looking at the evidence, does he truly believe there was no other way to deal with the so-called “freedom convoy” other than access to the Emergencies Act?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:53:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join the debate on the Emergencies Act. I hate to spoil the surprise for those waiting until the end of my speech to understand how I will vote, but I am going to come out early now and spoil it by saying I do not support this overreach by the government.
We have to ask how we got here today. I am sure the Liberals are saying “by Air Canada”, but I mean the crisis we are dealing with right now. Some think it was because of the trucker vaccine mandate brought in by the government about a month ago, and I have to wonder why, now, the government would bring this in.
At the very beginning of the pandemic, two years ago, before we had vaccines and before we knew much about COVID, truckers were able to come and go. They were deemed vital to the continuation of our economy, bringing food exports, so we were not putting any mandates on them then. During the delta wave, we had some vaccines, but not a huge part of the population had been vaccinated. Truckers were able to come into the country without having the mandate.
Here we are, now, where 90% of Canadians are vaxxed or partially vaxxed. We have had omicron wash through the country. Thankfully, due to the high vaccination rate and that it is milder, we have not had the problems and the issues of the first waves. Now, the Liberals decide they are going to hit the truckers with a mandate. There was no data to back it up and no reason, it seems, apart from politicking.
At the point where we are here with the crisis happening in Ottawa, some might think the tipping point was the Prime Minister in September, but it was reported in January, calling the unvaccinated racists, misogynists and extremists. The Prime Minister asked if we should “tolerate” these people, pitting Canadian against Canadian.
However, I think the roots of what is happening across Canada and outside this place, go back to the election. On July 13 the Prime Minister stated there would be no vaccine mandates. Two weeks later, when he called the unnecessary, unneeded election, he found out, though internal polling, that this was a wedge issue and he could wedge Canadian against Canadian and the electorate against Conservatives by flip-flopping and bringing in vaccine mandates and making it the prime election issue. It is quite funny, listening to the other side, especially the finance minister, calling Conservatives the party of flip-flop.
This country has had a number of distinguished finance ministers: Paul Martin, Jim Flaherty and Michael Wilson. Can members imagine any of these distinguished and fine finance ministers reducing themselves to name-calling, such as “the party of flip-flop”, like the current one? That seems to be the modus operandi of the government.
During the election, we had never seen protests like we did, caused by the current government. We had never had people out shamefully throwing rocks and pebbles at a prime minister until the government purposely wedged Canadians against Canadians.
We understand vaccines are important. We all know that, but pitting Canadians against unvaccinated Canadians for political gain is wrong, and it has led to what has happened outside. I have been doing this game for a long time. I actually started my political volunteering with a gentleman named Chuck Cook, who was the member of Parliament for North Vancouver and was the whip at one time for the Mulroney government. I helped out as a youth delegate alternate for Joe Clark, losing unfortunately. I campaigned from Victoria to Newfoundland, knocking at doors, and I have never seen such anger or so many Canadians turned against each other as I have because of the government turning one group against the other.
I once even actually door-knocked in the by-election in Davenport after Jack Layton passed away. I had never in my life seen a campaign where every single house had an orange sign throughout the entire riding. The support was amazing, but as a Conservative I was able to door-knock there with none of the vitriol we saw in the last election, again caused by the Prime Minister pitting Canadian against Canadian and wondering if we should tolerate other Canadians who have not been vaccinated.
When the truckers announced they were coming to town, the Prime Minister thought he could just demonize them like he did with other protests. If he called them names, they would simply go away, but they did not. The Prime Minister riled them up. Again, instead of discussing the issue, instead of debating it in the House, he called them names. He created the conditions and the anger and that stuck in Canada.
When we had rail protests a couple of years ago, crippling the economy, the port of Vancouver blockaded, the situation in Quebec with the lack of fuel was so bad that Alberta companies were talking about, heaven forbid, a convoy to bring propane to keep Quebeckers heated. What did the Prime Minister do? Did he call them names? These were protesters who were throwing furniture in front of moving trains, hoping to derail them. Did he call them names? Of course not. He actually hurried and sent ministers out to negotiate. This is not a national emergency as much as the other side will claim. This is a political emergency for the Prime Minister.
On the act itself, since 1988, we think of all the crises Canada has faced, and there have been a lot, some major, some not as much. We had Oka. I remember Oka. The army was there against people with AK47s, and it was solved without the Emergencies Act. There was Caledonia, and again the protests two years ago with the rail blockades. The G20 summit protest, where we had over 1,000 arrests, violence in the streets and storefronts destroyed, was not a national emergency.
In 1997, we remember Vancouver during APEC, when the RCMP famously pepper sprayed protesters and then prime minister Chrétien talked about pepper being something to put on his steak. People do not realize that the RCMP feared for protesters' lives, because the government for the first time had allowed eight different nations to have armed security with their leaders. I am not worried about Bush being here and the U.S. being armed, but President Suharto, a strongman and thug from Indonesia at the time had armed security with him. The RCMP stated they were afraid Suharto's thugs would fire into the crowd and kill Canadians, but that was not an emergency under the act.
At the Coastal GasLink protest, we just saw that people broke in and tried to light a car on fire that had workers inside. They broke in with axes; there were millions of dollars' worth of equipment and, when the police were attending, they ambushed the police, throwing burning items at the police cars. Apparently that was not an emergency. I wonder if the government is actually going to try to seize some of the bank accounts of those supporting such things.
Are the Liberals going to investigate that? Of course not, because certain ideological protests are apparently more fair than others. The Liberals will try their best to trot out the various reasons that this is a national emergency. They try to claim, as we heard earlier in one of my interventions, that these people were trying to overthrow the government. Seriously, as if the hot tub time machine guys out there with the ludicrous online demand to overthrow the government are to be taken seriously, or the people calling in saying, “Have the Governor General replace the Prime Minister.” That is not a serious issue.
Perhaps bringing out former prime minister Harper to be beheaded on the lawn of this place like the Toronto 18 planned to do could have been considered an emergency, but again, I do not think the bouncy castle people are anything that constitutes an emergency.
Earlier, when this first came up, I was heckled by one of the Liberals when I was asking a question about why they were able to clear Windsor, Surrey and the other border crossings without the Emergencies Act. Why do we need it? The Liberal MP yelled across that they might come back. I have to ask, when will this actually end for the Liberal government? When will the political emergency end if the government is saying secretly maybe they will come back and we will keep it going.
The Liberals have not justified in any way the use of the Emergencies Act. That is why I will not be supporting it.
1478 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:49:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will pick up on what the member just stated. At this time we are talking about the Emergencies Act, but think of how much better it would have been to be talking about the heroes of the pandemic. Here we are pushing the three-year mark, and at the end of the day, so much good has taken place.
Moving to his speech, there are a couple of points I would like to highlight. One is the importance and supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have heard the word “freedom” a lot during this debate, and the Emergencies Act does not override any aspect of the charter. Second, as the member made reference to, at any point in time there are four political entities in the House that have more than 20 members. All it takes is 20 members to require a vote on the revocation of the act at any point in time.
If the member could pick up on those points, I would appreciate it.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:50:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hear two main points. The first one gives us an opportunity to again thank all of the frontline workers and health care workers in this country who, while we debate this legislation, are tasked with the critical job of dealing with vulnerable people, helping patients and getting us through what is still a pandemic. I think that is always important to keep in mind as our attention is taken elsewhere.
Second of all, it was a major part of my research and speech to note that the Emergencies Act was carefully crafted in response to the excesses of the War Measures Act and contains within it many parliamentary oversights, restrictions and careful parameters to ensure that the excesses of the War Measures Act are not repeated. I think that is also a very vital point to make to Canadians to assure them that their rights remain paramount, even with the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
