SoVote

Feb/20/22 1:16:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that no level of government can direct a police force. We do not, nor should we, have these powers. The failure of the Ottawa Police Service to shut down this occupation quickly at the beginning will, I am sure, be the subject of further analysis, but that is not the debate today. The Emergencies Act was enacted due to the inability of provincial and municipal law enforcement to peacefully enforce the rule of law to address the blockades and occupation, to keep Canadians safe, to protect people’s jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. I fear many Canadians do not understand that the Emergencies Act is, indeed, different from the War Measures Act. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still in place, of course, while the Emergencies Act is in force. Civil liberties are not suspended, nor is the charter set aside. If the above rationale is not sufficient, then I point members to the proclamation declaring the public order emergency with further rationale. That includes the continuing blockades occurring at various locations throughout Canada and continuing threats to oppose measures to remove blockades, including by force, for the purpose of achieving political or ideological objectives; the adverse impact on the Canadian economy from the impacts of the blockades, and on Canada’s relationships with its trading partners, including the United States; the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods, services and resources caused by the blockades, and the risk that this could continue; and the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence, with further threats to our safety and security as Canadians. What does this actually mean? What does invoking the Emergencies Act actually do? Canadian governments at all levels have given the protesters a lot of leeway. Governments have allowed this protest to proceed despite a number of laws being broken. The protesters were allowed to make their point. We understand and continue to hear their concerns, and they have been debated at length in the House of Commons. Some other levels of government have even met protesters' demands and have begun repealing some COVID-19 measures, yet in the words of the protest organizers themselves, these concessions are insufficient. Anything short of overthrowing this democratically elected government is insufficient. At some point, protesters need to abide by the rules of democracy, just as the rest of us do. A democratically elected government, meaning us, may invoke duly-enacted emergency laws that are reviewable by the courts, subject to compliance with the charter, that are proportionate to civil disturbance and that are limited in scope. That is what has happened here. Any action taken under the Emergencies Act must be accountable to Parliament, to the courts and to the imminent public inquiry on the use of the Emergencies Act. There is no better example of the need to invoke the Emergencies Act than what has transpired over the past 48 hours just outside these doors. We heard directly from interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell that the additional tools he had at his disposal because of this action the government took to invoke the Emergencies Act enabled his force, with the support of the RCMP, OPP and other police forces from across the country, to lawfully dismantle the siege that crippled our downtown for far too long. I would like to review the measures that have been brought forward under the public order emergency very quickly. The first is regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to the breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest. The second is designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. The third is directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades. This is critical. This enabled us to compel tow truck drivers to engage and provide the services that we needed to clear this blockade. The fourth is authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services to relieve the impact of blockades. The fifth covers measures enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, and the sixth is the imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of the order. My hope is that we have seen invoking the Emergencies Act achieve two things. First, it gave the police forces the tools they needed to be able to end the occupation. Second, it enabled us to address the financial aspects of the protesters. We cannot let the international reputation of Canada be tarnished by letting our capital city fall because of this occupation. Colleagues on all sides of the House, let us find a way to govern together. We all have the best interests of Canadians at heart. Let us learn from this, both from our mistakes and our successes. The safety of Canadians and our democracy cannot be a partisan issue.

816 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Feb/20/22 1:22:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand here on behalf of Canadians to protect their freedoms. I wonder, if it is okay to restrict travel, collect cellphone data, use military propaganda domestically, enact an Emergencies Act and restrict financial transactions, is it really democracy? I guess that is the point I would like to make here. The crazy verge we are going upon, the precipice that the House is trying to prevent us from going towards, does appear to be a very partisan issue. I am really very unsure how the member opposite could call it a non-partisan issue when we have two parties who have clearly been, even before any debate, calling this a non-partisan issue. That does not make any sense to me. I do not have a question, just a comment.

138 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenna Sudds

Feb/20/22 1:23:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the lack of a question. I am happy to speak to his comment. My point is we are all here with Canadians' best interests at heart. That is why we should be here. It is our job to govern with their best interests at heart. I believe this should not be a partisan issue. This should be about the safety and security of Canadians. I believe that is what we are trying to achieve. We are invoking the Emergencies Act to protect the safety and security of Canadians across the country from the impact of these blockades and the occupation on our businesses, on our international reputation and importantly on the threat to our democracy, which they have stated is an objective. With respect, I do believe we should all be able to come to together to support this.

146 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 1:24:46 p.m.
Watch

There is still some heckling going on, and I just want to remind members to hold on. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

28 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/20/22 1:24:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kanata—Carleton for her point of view. I congratulate her on proposing a cross-partisan idea. I would like to hear it. I think we got to this point because of a lack of leadership. Nevertheless, I have the following question for the member: Does my colleague think that the Prime Minister should allow a free vote on this motion, as a way of showing leadership?

74 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenna Sudds

Feb/20/22 1:25:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very hard to hear the translation with the talking that is happening across the way.

19 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 1:25:34 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members that if they want to have side conversations, they should maybe have them in the lobby. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

26 words

Mrs. Jenna Sudds

Feb/20/22 1:25:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. As I said earlier, this is a critical, and arguably the most important, debate that we have had here in the House. I am honoured to be a part of it. I know that we all have Canadians' best interests at heart. I have heard from countless residents over the past three weeks about the impact that this occupation and the threats across the country have had. I believe it is important for all of us to listen, to hear what these residents have to say and to support them. By invoking the Emergencies Act, we have been able to empower our police forces to do the jobs they need to do to ensure safety and security across the country.

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 1:26:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kanata—Carleton stated what she believed were the points of law to support the declaration of public order and the various ways in which the declaration was needed in this crisis, including the financial measures in order to curb the dark money flowing in and supporting these illegal activities. I asked her colleague this question and he did not seem to have the answer, so I am going to ask her. It was made clear very early on in the occupation that crowdfunding and cryptocurrency were being used to fund illegal activity and organizers who seek to put in place their own undemocratic government. This was a demonstrated gap in the reporting requirements. Why did the government not take immediate action to ensure the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing regulations were updated to ensure these companies were not exempt from reporting transactions to FINTRAC?

152 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenna Sudds

Feb/20/22 1:27:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the financial measures that are being put in place, I believe we have broadened the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules so they cover crowdfunding platforms and their payment service providers, including digital assets such as cryptocurrencies. The government is issuing this order, effective last week, so Canadian financial institutions are able to temporarily seize those funds as they are suspected to contribute to the occupations.

74 words

All Topics

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC)

Feb/20/22 1:28:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 1:36:33 p.m.
Watch

Order. Again, the hon. parliamentary secretary has been here when I have ruled, I do not know how many times today, and I am sure the hon. member who also has been yelling and heckling across the way was here as well, so I want to ask members, again, to please hold on to their thoughts. I will be recognizing them for questions and comments soon. There is a minute and 50 seconds left for the hon. member for Carleton to do his speech. I hope that people will hold their thoughts.

92 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Feb/20/22 1:37:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we can remove all of the blockades. Let us remove the mandates and restrictions that are blocking people's livelihoods today. Let us end the blockades on freedom of speech that the government is trying to erect with its online censorship bill. Let us end the regulatory blockades so that builders can provide affordable homes, first nations can develop their economies and escape poverty, and newcomers can actually work in the professions for which they were trained. Let us remove the inflationary taxes, deficits, and money printing so that people's wages can again buy them homes, food and fuel. Let us remove that blockade. Let us put people back in control of their lives by making Canada the freest place on earth: free to speak, free to think, free to work, free to worship, free to own a home and build one's own destiny. Let us bind up the nation's wounds with compassion and respect and unite our country for freedom.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 1:38:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I heard today many comments that were more to do with a leadership campaign than helping the people of Ottawa and the people from communities across the country who have been impacted by the blockades. Not once did I hear about the city of Ottawa and what the residents have had to face for the last couple of days. This is all about political opportunism. Is the member concerned about helping the people of Ottawa and those across the country who have been impacted by blockades and the occupation?

91 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 1:38:56 p.m.
Watch

It is now on the opposite side we are hearing the heckling, and I know very well the hon. member for Carleton can answer those questions without any help. The hon. member for Carleton has the floor.

37 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Feb/20/22 1:39:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, am I concerned about the people who have been harmed by blockades? Absolutely. That is why I am so disappointed the Prime Minister caused these blockades in the first place. I am concerned about the businesses that were affected and I am also concerned about the governmental blockades that remain in place today, the attacks on the freedoms of Canadians to have a job, go to work, frequent restaurants, raise their kids and have their kids smile and have that smile seen again. Those are the blockades we now need to focus on eliminating and what I will continue to fight for.

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Feb/20/22 1:39:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I share his point of view for the most part. He listed a series of emergency situations that warrant being addressed by the government and rightly so. Would he agree that both this list of emergency situations and the events we have been experiencing on Parliament Hill over the past three weeks are situations that could be resolved if the government addressed these problems immediately, instead of breaking out the heavy artillery, like the Emergencies Act, every time a situation presents a challenge? Would tackling the problem of the protests from day one—especially as they shifted from a demonstration to an occupation of Wellington Street in Ottawa—not have resolved the problem and prevented the use of the act before us today?

134 words

All Topics

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Feb/20/22 1:40:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. In addition to taking action to deal with the problems the protesters raised, the Prime Minister could have avoided provoking these protests from the start. He is the one who attacked the jobs of the truckers, public servants and others, even as the rest of the world was lifting these restrictions and vaccine mandates. Now he can take action to lift these restrictions and allow people to work and return to their workplaces. He should have stood up in the House of Commons to reject this unjustifiable power grab and give back to Canadians the freedom they are entitled to.

106 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 1:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton's colleague, the MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, appeared in a video with convoy leader Pat King, an avowed white national who is quoted as saying many racist, xenophobic, anti-indigenous and anti-Semitic things, including that the Anglo-Saxon race has the “strongest blood lines” and that unless we fight back, we will all be speaking Hebrew. If he was elected leader of the Conservative Party, would he be willing to kick this member out of caucus or does he support fraternizing with dangerous white supremacists?

96 words

All Topics

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Feb/20/22 1:42:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from the very beginning I stated that every single person who acts inappropriately, makes racist comments or engages in unlawfulness or blockades should be personally responsible for their conduct. That is something I would uphold as leader and as prime minister. I would not tolerate any of the racist behaviour we have seen from the current Prime Minister, whether it is his ugly racist past, the racist manner in which he has treated numerous members of his caucus who have spoken out against him or whether it is continuing to give a billion dollars to the CBC, an organization that 500 employees have said is systematically racist. I will not tolerate any of that racism in my future government.

121 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35