SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 10:12:04 a.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we are out of time. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

26 words

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Feb/20/22 10:12:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member said in his speech that groups of people have been mobilizing and protesting across this country. They are protesting because the Liberal government's mandates have driven them to do this. The Prime Minister and the government have been calling people names and saying they are a fringe minority of Canadians, yet millions of Canadians have come out in support of their freedoms across the country. It is the Prime Minister's lack of leadership, divisive words, name-calling and unscientific mandates that started this in the first place. Canadians just wanted to be heard. When will the member, the Prime Minister and the Liberals start taking responsibility for the division they have created in this country among Canadians?

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/20/22 10:13:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member's remarks and take her question in good faith, I patently deny that our government has in any way, shape or form intentionally tried to exacerbate this issue or divide Canadians. I would also say that it is a delusion that seems to be perpetuated by the Conservative Party that somehow these illegal blockades are peaceful protests. Using transport trucks, occupying cities, harassing people and using intimidation to get one's way is mob rule. That's not how policy is changed in this country. It is not acceptable—

97 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 10:13:47 a.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.

8 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/20/22 10:13:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Whitby gave a long speech that included a lot of points to ponder. The Bloc Québécois believes intervention was called for. Had there been intervention, there would have been no need to invoke special legislation. However, what is past is past. Still, we know the far right is on the rise, and the member talked about that. Now let us talk about the future. The Emergencies Act was invoked without much thought, so where do we go from here? Will the government regularly invoke the Emergencies Act to thwart the far right? Has my colleague given any thought to a plan for the future?

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/20/22 10:14:50 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the Emergencies Act had been contemplated early on in this crisis, people would have a lot more cause for concern, but that is looking backward and the member opposite asked me to look forward. This is about a time-limited, geographically specific, targeted measure that is reasonable and proportionate. It is not being looked at as something that is ongoing. It is limited, and I believe strongly that our government is interested in and fully supports the parliamentary oversight that is required to ensure that this is used not one day longer than it is needed.

99 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 10:15:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us get real. We saw the convoy rolling down the highway. We knew that this specific convoy had ties with leaders from white nationalist groups, yet the government failed to act. We saw a siege of the capital city. My riding of Winnipeg Centre is now undergoing an occupation, where people are being faced with sonic abuse day in and day out, as well as assault and harassment. I am wondering why the government did not take the threat of white nationalist movements seriously enough, why it overlooked it and why we now find ourselves in this place.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/20/22 10:16:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really struggle to understand how we can lay blame so indiscriminately on the federal government, when this protest started with a convoy that came across the country. We all knew it was coming, but did the Ottawa police know just how quickly it would set in and become entrenched? When we look back on this, all levels and orders of government will be able to see where they could have acted more quickly or taken the threat more seriously, but hindsight is always 20/20. To get real, as the member said, we need to look at where we are now and look forward to how we are going to deal with this national crisis. I agree that it is a severe crisis and we need to use every tool in the tool box to get it under control, because the confidence of Canadians in the rule of law—

153 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 10:17:47 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

8 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 10:17:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague has outlined the implications of this measure. We have seen throughout this debate and over the past number of years how misinformation feeds into confusion and a lack of understanding. I have talked with a number of my constituents about what this convoy is about, and there seems to be a lot of misinformation. Therefore, I would ask the member this. What responsibility do members in this House have to make sure that Canadians know exactly what is going on, and what level of duty do they have to speak the truth?

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/20/22 10:18:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an area I feel very passionately about and have been troubled by since becoming a member of Parliament and seeing the proliferation of disinformation online and the impacts it has had on people during COVID‑19 while they have been isolated for periods of time. I think many people have consumed a lot of this misinformation or disinformation, and I believe it is incumbent upon all of us, as members of Parliament, to combat this and not lose sight of the fact that our dialogue and debates are supposed to be anchored in the pursuit of truth. If democracy loses sight of that, we are in big trouble, and I think that is what we are seeing today. People are misinformed. I watched the live news coverage on Friday, all day. I could not help but notice and be—

145 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 10:19:33 a.m.
Watch

We have to allow for other questions. The hon. member for York—Simcoe.

14 words

Simcoe
York

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

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

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/20/22 10:20:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from what I understand, omicron has changed the whole scenario we are in, so the context has shifted. However, that does not undermine the effectiveness of our vaccines in significantly reducing hospitalizations, severe illness and outcomes such as death. Vaccine mandates are still effective in reducing the spread of COVID‑19, specifically the spread of severe outcomes, and alleviating the burden on our health care systems, which we saw come very close to breaking down completely in the omicron wave. We have to continue this fight. The higher the vaccination rates, the better, and vaccine mandates have been proven in many jurisdictions to push those vaccination rates up as high as possible, which is good for our country and for our economy. I fully believe every Canadian should choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated. If they choose not to do so, that is their choice, but there are going to be some consequences associated with that.

160 words

All Topics

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Feb/20/22 10:22:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a year ago this week, I made a one-minute statement in the virtual House of Commons from my basement in Edmonton. I have reflected on that statement a lot over the past few weeks. Yesterday, as I listened to the debate and monitored my very active and animated social media feeds, I decided to work that statement into my speech this morning, if for no other reason than to anchor my own thoughts and emotions. Here is what I said a year ago: The past several years have been challenging for global democracy. We have seen a rise in polarization and increasingly vitriolic language expressed by hyperpartisans from all sides. Too often this leads to violence. Social media have exacerbated the problem. Sides are chosen and anchored in Twitter bios. Talking points are delivered in echo chambers, amplified by cryptic algorithms. Six decades ago, President Dwight Eisenhower seemingly anticipated our current need for wisdom, saying, “The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” Before our political labels, we are all just human beings. The middle of the road is simply our common ground. Make no mistake: Passionate political debate is foundational to a healthy democracy, but it is most effective when we engage in conversations not only seeking to persuade but open to being persuaded. This will require a significant shift in our current thinking, but in the end, we will all be better off for it. I will let others wade into the speeches and comments from this debate to discern who is adding to the polarization and vitriol and who is working to de-escalate them, apart from singling out one colleague. The speech by the new member for Simcoe North was the highlight of my day yesterday. His was a firm assessment. He was fair with his words and respectful in his tone. He is a worthy successor to the wonderful man who preceded him, Bruce Stanton. The other day I had several conversations with members of my amazing team. They are being absolutely deluged with calls and emails from constituents concerned about the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act, and they wanted me to post something on social media that they could point people to, that clearly stated my position. In about a minute, as I walked from this chamber down to the street, I simply wrote, “I have received more calls and emails in opposition to [the Prime Minister]'s Emergencies Act than perhaps any issue I’ve seen in 16 years. I agree with my constituents on this. It’s massive Liberal overreach, a dangerous precedent, and I will be speaking and voting against it.” After that post, many rightfully asked what I would have done, which is a reasonable and fair question. Before I get into that, though, I want to make some observations. During the debate yesterday, it was very clear that each of the two parties supporting the use of the Emergencies Act is taking a very different communications strategy. The Liberals have used the argument that the measures have been effective at clearing out Ottawa's downtown core, as though that is the sole determinant as to the rightness of the decision to employ the Emergencies Act. Of course, there was never any question as to whether the measures would be effective. If they were not, we would have much bigger issues than we are dealing with here today. The question we need to ask is whether the invocation of the Emergencies Act is justified. The Prime Minister himself has said that it should not be the first, second or third response, but so far no Liberal has been able to say what the first, second or third response was before using an act that has not been used in its 34 years of existence. NDP members in this debate have had an even more difficult time, having completely abandoned long-held NDP positions and principles. They have adopted a sort of scorched-earth approach to the debate, repeatedly highlighting a number of individual actions and situations that every member of the House agrees are completely unacceptable and then attempting to attach those unacceptable actions to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are demanding that their legitimate concerns be heard by their government. If one wants to understand the traditional NDP position, one would be best to visit the Canadian Civil Liberties Association website, because one will not hear any NDP members actually talking about it here. Returning to my response to those who asked me what I would have done in this situation, they first need to recognize that just in the case of any protest movement since the beginning of time, there are those who will use the movement to pile on their own issues and agenda. I am going to deal with the core issue, which is federal vaccine mandates. For starters, I would have followed the May 2021 principle laid out by the Prime Minister himself, who said in an interview, “We're not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.” He and I are both provaccine, and at the time were both antimandate. We would not be where we are today if he had not changed that during the election campaign. It made for a fantastic political wedge. I have never seen a more angry, divided electorate in my six campaigns. The Liberal campaign was invigorated by the issue, but it was a terribly divisive policy. Our Conservative campaign position was a good one: no federal mandate and stronger testing. We expressed a belief in vaccine science and offered an alternative for those who were not there yet, but in the volatile last three campaign weeks, that rational message just did not cut through. Here is the critical part. In order to comprehend where we are today, people might have to really work to put themselves in the position of someone who may have a view significantly different from theirs. This is increasingly rare in a world obsessed with othering. I am solidly pro-vaccine. I have my three Pfizer shots. I believe in the evidence I have been presented, while also believing that we need to remain vigilant for emerging information. People I know and love have come to a completely different conclusion regarding the efficacy of vaccines. While I strongly disagree with them on vaccine efficacy, I support their right not to take the vaccine. We cannot be a country that forces people to inject themselves with things they believe will hurt them, whether we agree or not. Last May, the Prime Minister seemed to also hold that view. People will say that we are not forcing anybody; they have a choice. This thinking is easy to get past with just a little personal reflection. Of course we all have things that we believe, rightly or wrongly, will hurt us. Most of us have never been told we will lose our careers over them. Everybody is hurting right now because of COVID. The last two years have been tough, but there is a portion of the population who, because they will not take a vaccine that they genuinely believe will hurt them, have been forced out of their jobs and, in some cases, their homes. Whatever the percentage, the number of unvaccinated Canadians is not insignificant. Their intense, genuine frustration is completely understandable for anyone who takes the time to listen to their stories. We can have empathy without agreeing with their views on vaccines. The Prime Minister could have tasked medical experts to persuade or most safely accommodate people with “deep convictions”, using the Prime Minister's own May 2021 words, whom the government was unable to convince to take vaccines. If we were actually all in this together, then this is what he would have done. Instead of a strategy focused on real togetherness, though, the Prime Minister not only chose to exclude people who hold a different belief on vaccines than he does, which I share for that matter, but has consistently and deliberately demonized them for holding that belief. Leaving aside the Prime Minister's most inflammatory attacks, including remarks saying that many of them are misogynist and racist, let us zero in on the near-constant reference to unvaccinated Canadians as selfish. As a mass characterization, this is simply untrue. Some of the most generous people I know have chosen to be unvaccinated. Sure, most believe vaccines will hurt them on an individual level. That does not make them selfish. They also believe nobody should take them because they believe vaccines will hurt us and they care about us. The bottom line is this. On Monday, Parliament voted on a non-partisan Conservative motion designed to de-escalate the situation. Conservatives also reiterated clearly that the illegal blockades need to end. That plan was rejected by Liberal and NDP members. Instead, the emergencies plan was announced. While Liberal MPs are correct in pointing out that police have been effective in clearing the streets, surely we can agree that absolutely nothing has been done to address the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of people who supported this protest from across the country. If anything, those Canadians feel less heard and more abandoned by their government than they did four weeks ago. We are more divided today, as a country, than at any time in our history. To close, I would like to say this in response to the mass branding project undertaken over the past few weeks by not all but too many members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party and, to be clear, a strategy too often used by members from all parties at times. Now, and in the future, no matter what might be the issue of the day, no matter what is being protested on and around Parliament Hill, I will never be afraid to talk to people I have never met, fearful that someone in the background whom I do not know might hold up a sign that anyone who knows me knows I would find abhorrent. I will never be afraid to have a meaningful conversation with a fellow human being because of some label that someone in this House or their partisan friends will attach to me for solely partisan political reasons. If that is something we can all agree on as we find some time to breathe and reflect this week, perhaps that will be a starting point for real, powerful change in this country.

1784 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 10:32:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and mention that I, too, have had several conversations with several protesters. I think it is important to have those conversations. My question stems from the member's comment regarding the fact that our government did not proceed with any actions prior to the invocation of the emergency measures act, which is completely incorrect. We did provide RCMP at the request of provinces and territories on every occasion. In fact, following that, the Government of Alberta sent a letter to our federal government and I will read a portion of it quickly into the record. It states: The RCMP, along with local and provincial officials, have been working closely in an attempt to persuade the demonstration participants to remove their vehicles but have been unsuccessful. In addition, as a result of private industry concerns over negative consequences, the RCMP have been unable to secure the appropriate heavy duty equipment required to remove vehicles and other items such as trailers and tractors from the area. Attempts to procure these services with—

183 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 10:33:27 a.m.
Watch

I will ask the hon. member to ask a question because we have to give other people opportunities to speak.

20 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/20/22 10:33:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, why is the member from Alberta denying the people of Alberta the protections that the government of his province had requested from the federal government?

27 words

All Topics

Hon. Mike Lake

Feb/20/22 10:33:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member because it might be the first time I have heard a Liberal member mention Alberta in the House. She has to recognize, first of all, that among my constituents, almost universally, the feedback we have gotten back has been opposed to the Emergencies Act. My staff tell me probably 95% of the feedback we have gotten has been people asking me to oppose the Emergencies Act. I would welcome any Liberal member of Parliament who wants to come out to Canada's most populous riding, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I would gladly give them a tour so they can actually talk to some of the people they too often completely ignore.

119 words

All Topics

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/20/22 10:34:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I really appreciated it. He is right. It is deplorable that people's opinions have turned into an issue, an argument among friends and family, and between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. All of this has clearly exacerbated the divisions in Canadian society. With all due respect to the member, I know that his party has finally reversed its position and asked the protesters to leave, but I still find it appalling to have seen members of the Conservative Party on social media, waging some kind of disinformation campaign about the motion the member mentioned. They said they were asking for a plan to lift public health measures. Certain Conservative Party members said that they were asking for the health measures to be lifted and that that was what the vote would be on, so they had to tell members to vote in favour of the motion. Does the member not find that this exacerbated divisions and that it did a great disservice to the cause?

175 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35