SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:23:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments and his approach to the situation. One of the concerns that I have had through this debate, because it is a very serious debate that we are facing, is that there seems to be a conflation sometimes between the issues raised by people who have been involved in blocking our border on bridges or involved in events here in Ottawa and the methods that they used to raise these issues. The impact on jobs, trade and people's lives has been very serious. Could the member comment on whether he feels that the issues have been conflated? What is the impact?

113 words

All Topics

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:23:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. I alluded to this earlier in a question. There is a message out there. People have opposing views. I respect those views, but if the people with whom I stand are suddenly hijacked by people who are doing something wrong and have a message that is inappropriate, we need to walk away and separate those messages so that we can—

67 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:24:19 a.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

11 words

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

Feb/20/22 11:24:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a sad and dark time for our great country. The last two years have been difficult for everyone. Every person in this country has been affected by the pandemic. No one has been exempt. How did we get here? What brought us to this point? Standing here in this chamber today to debate the unprecedented use of Canada's Emergencies Act is upsetting, to say the least. The culmination of what has happened to our country under the Liberal government's divisive and stigmatizing leadership is tragic. We have seen peaceful law enforcement resolutions that ended multiple unlawful border blockades without the Emergencies Act. Why do we need to escalate to these drastic measures? I will always stand up for Canadians' rights to peacefully assemble and lawfully protest. Likewise, I will always condemn disrespectful, hateful and unlawful conduct. Conservatives have condemned the blocking of critical infrastructure and have called for a peaceful protest. As the events evolved, the Prime Minister made no effort to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he escalated it by continuing to divide, wedge, stigmatize and traumatize Canadians. Instead of apologizing for his mistakes, he threw fuel on the fire and opted for extreme overreach. Canadians have had enough. At the very least, they deserve a plan from the Liberal government to end the mandates. It has been said many times this week that the Emergencies Act has never been invoked and should only be used in the most dire situations. It was not invoked for the Oka crisis, not for 9/11, not for the shooting on Parliament Hill, not for the rail blockades or even for COVID-19. Where is the threat to our sovereignty and national security? What proof does the government have showing the threshold has been met to invoke its use now? Neither the Prime Minister nor any of his ministers have answered these questions. The Prime Minister has said the act should not be used as a first, second or third choice, but we on the opposition side have asked repeatedly what his first, second and third choices were. The question has still not been answered. The government, which currently has immense powers granted by the Emergencies Act, refuses to be clear or accountable to Parliament. How can the government be trusted to show responsibility in answering to Canadians? The situation has become a spectacle around the world as a result of the Prime Minister's failures. He tries to save face by using the Emergencies Act, a measure of last resort. It is like using a wrecking ball to fix a broken tractor. It makes no sense. What also does not make sense is a February 17 tweet from Foreign Policy CAN which said, “Canada condemns Cuba's harsh sentencing following the July 2021 protests. Canada strongly advocates for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly free from intimidation. We stand with the people of Cuba in their aspiration for democracy.” This is a little rich, coming from a government that will not even so much as go out and listen to its own people who have been waiting to be heard. The government claims that it will not use this piece of legislation to take away freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, but we have come to a point here where people from all over the country feel that they do not have a voice. We are at a point where the government has dropped a sledgehammer and is taking the most extreme action the government can take to silence the voices of Canadians who are simply asking to be heard. Again I must ask what the first, second and third things were that the government did to avoid getting to this place where we are now. I am not alone in wondering why the Liberal government is so hesitant to advocate the same freedoms for its own citizens that it has asked for Cubans. I know the Prime Minister has said that he admires basic dictatorships. Could it be that they find democratic rights, such as free expression and peaceful assembly, inconvenient when it does not align with their politics? Real leadership involves listening to people and considering their opinions, whether one agrees with them or not. Real leadership is about making sure people feel heard. The Prime Minister continues to malign and name-call Canadians with whom he disagrees. This is not leadership. Real leadership allows people to write to one's office and say they appreciate that regardless of one's perspective on the mandates, one is open-minded enough to talk to them. Real leadership is acknowledging and owning our mistakes. It is humility, not hubris. If our Prime Minister had at least attempted to listen to the people who came all the way to Ottawa, we would not be in this situation at all. Canadians came to Ottawa from coast to coast to coast. They spent thousands of their hard-earned dollars and days of their time to be here because they felt that their government was not listening to them. They felt the only way they could be heard was by coming to Ottawa. The Prime Minister has done nothing but divide, wedge, stigmatize and traumatize Canadians for two years. Canadians have seen that. Trust has been broken. The Conservatives warned Canadians repeatedly about the Liberals' love of power. We have stood against the unprecedented power grabs and scandals since before the pandemic. We said no when they tried to grant themselves unlimited taxing and spending powers without parliamentary oversight. That all happened on a weekend, and here we are on a weekend again, debating another piece of emergency legislation that gives the government overreaching power. The legislation grants unprecedented powers over Canadians' financial security. I have heard from thousands of residents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, most of whom have never contacted their MP's office. Simply put, they are traumatized. They are gripped with fear that donating to or purchasing from anything not approved by the government will result in their assets being frozen. They have very real concerns about how the changes brought by the act will impact their finances and their credit ratings long term. They have written me, saying, “My country is falling apart. What do I do?” They are hearing on the news that the Liberals are threatening to freeze their bank accounts if they support an organization they do not approve of. That is not an exaggeration. During an interview, the justice minister even replied in the affirmative when asked if the banks could freeze the accounts of anyone who donated for not liking the government's vaccine mandates. He said, “if you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who is donating...to this kind of thing, then you ought to be worried”. I would say to the minister that this is not what we are seeing. It is ordinary Canadians, patriotic Canadians, who are having their accounts frozen. It is Canadians who disagreed with an unnecessary and divisive government policy. It is not people donating large sums of money. It is Canadians who donated $20 who are being locked out of their bank accounts. It is those who got a T-shirt or a toque and those who sent money to a peaceful demonstration that gave them hope. Even though the Liberal government says that the financial measures are temporary, regardless of how the vote goes, the Liberals will bring legislation forward to transition these powers into a permanent power grab. They want to permanently remove judges, who are the gatekeepers ensuring that big government overreach does not happen. The finance minister said as much during a press conference on Monday. He said the move to make crowdfunding platforms reportable to FINTRAC is going to be made permanent. She is also telling the banks to review their relationship with anyone involved in the blockades and report findings to the RCMP and CSIS. When Canadians look back on this debate in the history books, they will see which of us, and the parties we represent, stood up for their interests, for their freedoms and for ending or enabling the continued trauma brought forward by the Prime Minister's inability to show compassion and leadership and by his power-seeking political games. It is the government's responsibility to stop contributing to the problem and to significantly improve its response to address the damage that is already done. I encourage everyone to open compassionate eyes, hearts and hands to the burdens our families, neighbours and communities are bearing, and to create for each other the harbour of safety, respect and inclusion that we Canadians are known for. The Conservatives will continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. We can do this without the government overreaching and using the Emergencies Act. Canadians are clear when they write our offices to say, “I am asking that you vote for ending all mandates, as well as the state of emergency immediately. It is time to follow the medical science and not political science, and do the right thing for the people.” That is why I will be voting against this motion.

1554 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

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

Ms. Lianne Rood

Feb/20/22 11:35:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when somebody is standing up for freedom for Canadians, they will never be on the wrong side of history in the history books. I encourage the member opposite to stop the divisive rhetoric that I hear constantly day in and day out here and actually show some leadership. He should be encouraging and should try to give Canadians hope, which is what the Conservatives are doing every day in this place and will continue to do.

78 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Feb/20/22 11:35:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for mentioning that we are experiencing a crisis of trust. I witnessed the WE Charity saga. The first thing I thought was, how could our government be trusted? We are seeing unreasonable and disproportionate measures right now, and it is going to dawn on people that what has happened in the last few days is not because of the order. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with that. The order could be confirmed by Parliament on Monday, but it could equally well be stopped. Given what the world thinks of us, does my colleague think that the NDP might change its mind?

116 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood

Feb/20/22 11:36:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me be clear that invoking this act is an attack the Prime Minister is using on his political opponents. This is not about public safety, and the Prime Minister has changed his story many times. The blockades at the borders were resolved before this act was involved, and the protest in Ottawa is now over. Why does the government need to use these unprecedented powers? Why does the NDP want to side with the Liberals and be on the wrong side of history when it comes to the vote on Monday night?

95 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 11:37:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not talking about all the people who have been involved, but all movements, as we know, have leaders. I heard members of the official opposition minimize what is currently going on, calling it peaceful and reflective of regular Canadians. I would ask my colleague if she thinks the beliefs coming from the leaders are peaceful and non-misogynistic and are really reflective of freedom. Here is the first one: “Canada is ill and suffering and it is suffering from the stench of cultural relativism and political Islam.” That was from B.J. Dichter. Pat King said, “Trudeau, someone's gonna make you catch a bullet one day. To the rest of this government, someone's gonna—”

125 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:38:16 a.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member not to use names, please.

11 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/20/22 11:38:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but it is in a quote. Pat King said, “Trudeau, someone's gonna—”

21 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:38:31 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member can replace the name with the title.

10 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/20/22 11:38:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Pat King said, “[Mr. Prime Minister], someone's gonna make you catch a bullet one day. To the rest of this government, someone's gonna...do you in, you sons of bitches.”

36 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:38:47 a.m.
Watch

I know it is in a quote, but I remind the member that it is unparliamentary language.

17 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/20/22 11:38:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I feel a little worked up because I do not think these beliefs are reflective of Canadians— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

29 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:39:06 a.m.
Watch

Unparliamentary language was an issue last evening and we agreed that we would not use it, even in quotes. I recommend that members stop using those words. I will give the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex a chance to answer.

42 words

Ms. Lianne Rood

Feb/20/22 11:39:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, but this is just more inflammatory rhetoric from the NDP. Why would the NDP support this? The party was founded on the principle of civil liberties, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is actually suing the government right now. It is unprecedented. I did spend time talking with my own constituents, whom I met up here on the first weekend the protest started in Ottawa. I did not see any of these things. What I saw was patriotic, flag-waving Canadians who had more joy than I have ever seen before. People were hugging in the streets. It was like Canada Day times a thousand, bigger than any Canada Day I have ever seen in this country. I will always be proud to represent Canadians and constituents in my riding who are patriotic and who are free to speak and assemble peacefully.

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:40:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I join the debate today. I feel that we should not have gotten to this place where we are debating whether or not to use the Emergencies Act. I believe so many steps should have been taken before we got to the point where a government can freeze Canadians' bank accounts if they do not believe in its political ideology. It is not with great joy that I stand on my feet today, but it is always an honour to represent the people of Regina—Lewvan. I want to do that because I have had countless phone calls and hundreds of emails on what we are talking about today in the House of Commons. I have constantly heard from the other side about the threat to democracy in Canada, but over the last three weeks, we have all been in the chamber, day in and day out, doing our jobs. We have been to committee, doing our jobs. Not once have I heard a Liberal member tell us what the threat to democracy is, because we have been here doing our jobs. Our leader is a member of the Privy Council, and if there were imminent threats, they could have taken her in, briefed her and talked about what those imminent threats were. The only other group that is carrying the same narrative about a threat to democracy is the CBC. I would love to see the proof from my hon. Liberal colleagues about what is and what was the actual threat to democracy. It seems that everyone on their feet today is trying to litigate the protest outside, which does not exist anymore, or trying to litigate whether the blockades were illegal. They were illegal, but they are over. What we are talking about is a government that never has the ability to look forward. This Monday, we asked the Liberals for a plan to get rid of mandates and restrictions and they voted against that because they did not have a plan to put in place. When I stand on my feet today, I am not going to litigate the protests, nor whether the blockades were illegal, because they were illegal and they were removed. What I am going to talk about is whether the Emergencies Act, formerly the War Measures Act, is needed going forward. Does the government still need that power? Does the government still need the ability to freeze the bank accounts of people who donated to the “freedom convoy”? Does the government need the ability to freeze the bank accounts of people who have put pro-Donald Trump comments on their Facebook pages? Is that something that we believe as Canadians a government actually needs? Does the NDP believe that this is a power the government needs going forward? These are the questions that I think everyone in the chamber should ask. The Liberals have invoked the Emergencies Act and used it to get rid of the protesters and the trucks on Wellington. They are not there anymore, so the question is, moving forward as Canadians, do we want to give the current Prime Minister these powers? I have the order in council right here, and it is one of the reasons I could never support this act. The order in council, in item (c)(vi), says: other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known. Canadians do not want to give more power to the Prime Minister and his cabinet given not only what is in the act, but what is not even known yet about what they might use this power for. When I go back to Regina—Lewvan for door knocking and to talk to constituents, they are going to ask if I voted for this. I am going to be proud to say that I absolutely did not. There are so many other measures the government could have taken before we got to this point. It was unnecessary. We saw the illegal blockades at Coutts, Emerson and Surrey removed without this act. Going forward, when there are no protests and no trucks on Wellington, why would we ever approve this power? Not one Liberal has explained that to me. I hope that in questions and answers one of them does try to explain, first of all, why they need these powers going forward, and second of all, what the imminent threat to our democracy is. We are here. We are doing our jobs. Why would this power be needed going forward? I had the experience, as many of my colleagues did, of staying downtown in a hotel and walking here and back over the last three weeks. My family was in town for the weekend. My wife, kids and I walked around and talked to some people who were from Saskatchewan. We had conversations and we never felt threatened. The member for Whitby talked in his speech about downtown residents of Ottawa feeling terrorized by horn-honking and big trucks. I know one resident of downtown Ottawa who feels terrorized right now and her name is Tammy. She runs a gelato café. Her bank account was just frozen because she has a big heart and she cares for people. She donated $250 for the truck convoy and now her bank and business accounts are frozen. That is one citizen of Ottawa who is feeling terrorized by not the protesters, but by their own government right now. That is what we are talking about. Citizens around this country are now feeling traumatized, stigmatized, divided from their government. What would my colleagues across the way have to say to Tammy? Do they think it is fair? She said in an interview that she has a big heart and cares for people, but her bank account was frozen. Do they think she is a domestic terrorist? Is that the type of people that now we are trying to protect other Canadians from? I would ask my friends on the NDP side to think about some of these statements because they are going to have to answer to their constituents as well. I am from Saskatchewan, home of the CCF, home of Tommy Douglas. I guarantee if Tommy Douglas were in the chamber today, he would not be voting in favour of the Emergencies Act. He is the founder of the NDP. He built the principles that the party is supposed to stand on. I believe his comment was “using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut”. Do the New Democrats still have those same principles? Do they believe in the Civil Liberties Association of Canada that is suing the government now saying this is a step too far, this is unconstitutional? In going home to our ridings, I believe my colleague and friend from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex was exactly right. This will be remembered throughout history. This speech is something that people will look back on and decide who was on the right side of this. The trucks are gone. The blockades are gone. Now we have to decide whether or not we want to be on that side. I know my Liberal colleagues thought I was going to be up in arms in a very passionate speech, but it is something that is coming from my heart and from what people are telling me. The member for Winnipeg North is always on his feet and says a lot in the chamber and he is going to have to make a decision on how he is going to vote. I know some of his constituents are asking how he is going to vote on this because some will not want him to and he is ignoring his community. I have some really good friends, Derek, Ryan and Mike, who drove here to to see what was going on. It is 30 hours from Saskatchewan. We walked around the other night and talked with people and they did not feel threatened. A couple of them started to tear up and these are grown farm kids when they saw what was going on in our country. They said is this what Canada looks like now? Is this the type of Canada we want to leave for our children? Police in riot gear and horses on the street. I remember the 2006 election campaign the Liberals said Stephen Harper was going to have police on the street. Well, the Liberals are actually fulfilling that prophesy. They brought in many armed riot police to make sure that Canadians were dispersed. There was not a lot of violence. Why is no one talking about the violence that happened at the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, where 20 people with axes attacked police officers, did tens of millions of dollars worth of damage and there was not a peep from the Liberal side. Why is that so different from what is going on here? They tried to light a car on fire with people in it. I am troubled. What is the difference? One of the things I want to get on the record is that the Liberals did not do the steps to make sure the protesters left before three weeks. They sent the Minister of Indigenous Services to talk to some of the protesters in 2020. They sent the Minister of Northern Affairs to talk to protesters at the Mohawk blockades. Why did not one of the front-benchers talk to the protesters and listen to what they had to say? I will represent my people well. I will be voting against the Emergencies Act. There is no emergency. There is no threat to our democracy and it is a shame that the government has not pulled this bill.

1644 words

All Topics

Hon. Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:50:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would be very interested in this colleague's personal view on whether he believes it is justifiable in what he calls civil disobedience, which is against the law, by the way, or occupation, whether it is acceptable to make the lives of other people very difficult, either because their jobs may be in jeopardy because their livelihoods depend on products crossing the border or the poor people who live in Ottawa Centre whose lives have been made very difficult over the past three weeks. In the member's personal opinion, is that justifiable?

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Feb/20/22 11:51:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am here to represent the people of Regina—Lewvan, Saskatchewan. Their lives have been made miserable for seven years because of Liberal policies. There are people who have not been able to go to work for years, because of the anti-oil, anti-agriculture policies put in place. To talk down to me and expect that I do not know what people are going through or who have tough times is, quite frankly, disrespectful to me and to the people I represent. I am here because the people of Saskatchewan have had a tough time because of the pathetic policies these Liberals have implemented over the last seven years.

113 words

All Topics