SoVote

Feb/20/22 7:25:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I speak today from the traditional territory of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council and Kwanlin Dun First Nation, recognizing with honour the trust that the people of Yukon have bestowed on me to represent them in this House and lend my voice to this important debate. I recognize also what a great privilege we have here to carry out this debate on some of the most fundamental tenets of our democracy in one of the most respected and successful democracies in the world. As members of Parliament, we all have a responsibility to put partisan ideology aside, look at the best evidence we can find and set the way forward to preserve our democracy from any cracks in its integrity or threats to its survival. Today we are debating the invocation of the Emergencies Act, legislation that was passed in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act to ensure that in moments of crisis when existing measures are insufficient, special time-limited measures could be introduced federally to deal with the crisis. As many have stated, this is the first time these measures have been enacted. I add my voice to those who agree that this action is necessary to put an end to the occupation of Ottawa, address the blockades or threats of blockades by these groups and address the threats to critical infrastructure. Let me be clear: This is no longer a mandates protest. This is a siege, an occupation and a credible threat to our democracy. I will come back to that, but first I would like to offer some reflections on the pandemic and the many measures that have been put in place to respond to this public health crisis. Fatigue and pandemic exhaustion simply from the length of this pandemic have fuelled much of the current unrest, unrest due not only to the two-year duration but also the many false endings we have seen. How many lights at the end of the tunnel will be seen before it really is not another train? Almost a full two years ago, as chief medical officer of health for Yukon, I was involved in the first few weeks as we watched and prepared for the pandemic coming closer to Yukon. I remember fully the tears that were in the eyes of deputy CMOH Dr. Elliott when she had to announce the cancellation of the Arctic Winter Games, the first of many joyous events that fell in the path of COVID. No long later, even before our first case, we declared a public health emergency, knowing that extraordinary measures would be required to fight this pandemic. When I announced Yukon's first cases and later Yukon's first death from COVID-19, those days are marked with searing clarity in my memory. When we decided early on and quickly that the only way to protect ourselves from COVID would be to temporarily limit non-essential travel into Yukon and establish a quarantine requirement, we realized how drastic and serious a move that was. There were Yukoners who opposed that move, some vociferously, and we were acutely aware of the hardship and loss that those restrictions imposed. However, most people supported the move. It gave us protection and allowed us more freedom within our territory. We united as a community and we managed to contain the impact of COVID to a minimum until the arrival of vaccines enabled us to gradually replace border controls with a vaccine strategy, well before most other jurisdictions with similar approaches. Even before vaccines arrived, we opened borders when we could, even removing quarantine requirements for our B.C. bubble in the summer of 2020 to allow travel back-and-forth between B.C. and Yukon, providing a release valve for people to travel in both directions and for families and friends to reunite. Largely, our strategy of containment worked. Were there costs? Absolutely there were. We shared the pain of elders in long-term care not having visitors, but we avoided outbreaks of COVID in long-term care and protected many lives. We saw families separated, families grieving the loss of loved ones in solitude, celebrations of all kinds cancelled or severely cut, workplaces struggling to keep up and tourism devastated, but because we had measures in place that were tied to the risk of COVID, we kept our society open as much as possible. We had compensation, including substantial federal benefits that were supplemented by territorial government supports and allowed people and businesses to stay afloat despite incredible challenges. I am telling this story because I wanted to help members understand that painful compromises and infringements on individual freedom had to be made in order to achieve a greater public benefit. We knew there was a cost and we did not hide that. We started early to measure and document the effects not just of the virus but of the consequences of restrictions. There were mental health effects, including depression and anxiety, addictions and toxic drug deaths. A backlog of surgical health care services and screening was unattended to. There were children suffering from lack of socialization and physical activity. As CMOH, it had always been my perspective to understand and address resistance and hesitancy. When vaccines arrived, through conversation and consultation, we could help determine what stood between anyone's beliefs and vaccines, work with that person or community and strive for ever higher vaccination rates. When we removed vaccine quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated people, the move was received with joy and relief. Of course, not everyone agreed or was pleased, but in allowing fully vaccinated people to have that extra freedom, we were able to achieve more people being able to travel, more families reuniting and more people getting vaccinated to enable our small population to weather oncoming waves of the pandemic. Do vaccine requirements and mandates restrict individual freedom? To some extent, they do, but so do seat belts, drinking and driving laws, and other vaccine policies. In fact, many everyday laws and regulations keep us safe and allow us to thrive. A greater public good should always be the aim. In the case of COVID vaccine policies, the public good is found in allowing sectors to reopen or reinvigorate, in allowing people's livelihoods to continue or in advising people to get vaccinated. As the pandemic once again recedes, we should be well placed to reduce and rescind many of these requirements, especially as our tool box to tackle COVID is growing. These tools include better masks, better knowledge of how masks work, more understanding of the role of ventilation, an increasing panoply of vaccines, the arrival of effective treatments and even increased population immunity with the recent omicron wave. However, let me be clear: We should not be in a rush to end our restrictions and policies. If we have learned anything, it is that public health responses should be swift in response to a threat and lifted slowly, in accordance with expert analysis of viral activity, including international surveillance and monitoring. Unfortunately, the pandemic will not be gone overnight. There is a rush toward thinking that we are in an endemic phase, without even fully knowing what “endemic” means. Let us note, for example, that in Denmark, where restrictions were rapidly dropped in a highly vaccinated population, a country often cited in the House as one whose policies we should adopt, we are already seeing concerning trends in increasing ICU and death rates. There is a cost, and that cost will be borne disproportionately by people at greater risk and susceptibility. They are people with disabilities, people who are immunocompromised and people who, for whatever reason, are not vaccinated. I am concerned for other parts of the globe or a country where restrictions have precipitately been removed. We need a gradual and thoughtful way out of this phase of the pandemic, and we need to take considerable caution with what might be next. Let us revisit the Emergencies Act and whether it was called for. As I said, I believe it was necessary, for all of the reasons that we have already heard on this side of the House. I, like anyone, have received emails and correspondence saying “support the convoy”. I have even received some from people in Yukon. However, I have received concerned emails and calls from many others. One call from a Yukon resident representing many like-minded friends said to me, “You have to do something. This occupation and these blockades are unacceptable in a democracy. You have to do more.” Our capital city is being occupied. As anguished as Ottawa citizens have been, this call came from citizens of Canada 5,400 kilometres away. Ottawa being occupied is more than a city being under siege. People, including my own family members, are being subjected to fear. The downtown core is shut down like a war zone. This is about a disruptive occupation with a violent underbelly bringing our capital city to its knees. It has been said many times, but please remember that the Emergencies Act is scalable, so that the response is proportionate to the threat. It is limited in time. It is limited in scope. It offers extensive parliamentary oversight, part of which we are engaging in presently, to ensure the measures introduced are not abused. Perhaps most importantly, it must be charter compliant—that is, it must operate within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The act is designed to support provinces and territories that require additional authorities, but imposes no infringement upon the rights of citizens anywhere. Some of my colleagues opposite have compared the Emergencies Act, even today, to the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970. Not to age myself, but I will. It is a day that, as a 12-year-old child, I remember well. I was not far from the age of my own son, who is 13 years old, and my grandniece Audrey, who celebrates her 12th birthday today in Ottawa. I wish Audrey happy birthday on this singular Sunday. Back to 1970, when I was 12, I do remember the shock and pall with which the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, and later the murder of Mr. Laporte, rocked the country. That was a tense time and many of us are reflecting on Canada's experience and response in that time of fear, violence and threat.

1751 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 7:36:27 p.m.
Watch

Order. Somebody seems to have their mike on, so we will take care of that. There seem to be a lot of conversations going on in one corner of the chamber, and I would ask members to take the conversations outside instead. I have signalled a couple of times to members to reduce the sound. If people want to meet, the place to go is the lobby. The mike that was on has been turned off, so the hon. member can continue his speech. The hon. member for Yukon.

89 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:37:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us be clear that 52 years later, we are invoking an entirely different and substantially refined piece of legislation. The Emergencies Act is not the War Measures Act. Indeed, the accountability mechanisms included in the Emergencies Act are a testament to the strength of Canada's democracy. I salute all those in this House in years gone by who worked to make it so. We know the steps that were attempted to reach a solution. For three weeks, Ottawa as a city was held hostage and occupied, forcing businesses that were poised to move on to the next stages of reopening to stay closed, harassing and disrupting the life of communities, putting lives, homes and businesses at risk. There has been much discussion, particularly from across the aisle, about how innocent and well behaved people attending the occupation were. Sure. I also walked around and people smiled and said good morning or good evening. I, too, saw the bouncy castle and the barbeques, the sing-songs and children playing, but I reject that these were simply innocent and peaceful protesters. They may have started with intentions to simply state their objections to the mandates, but by being present in the occupied city core, whether friendly or not, they were actively complicit in an occupation that had long seized being a simple protest. Others, including the testimony from my colleagues today, have well documented the other elements that led this well beyond a protest to an actual threat to public order: threats from the extremist elements that have brought this from protest to siege, the funding, the foreign influence, the disruption to citizens of Ottawa, the blockades that virtually stopped our trade with the U.S. in its tracks, affecting already strained supplies that have led to shortages all the way to stores in rural Yukon. All Canadians have the right to protest, and I will always fight for that right. That right is enshrined and protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our right to protest, however, should not infringe on the rights of others. In Ottawa, the city has been occupied and, given the inability of existing levers available at the municipal and provincial authorities alone, greater federal involvement through this act was critically needed to lift the siege. I never thought that the word “freedom” could be co-opted into a threat, or that our beautiful national flag could become a symbol of occupation. The occupation of Ottawa must end, as it has, and we must move on from this. I believe the Emergencies Act was necessary to get us there. As well as a public health physician, I am also, or at least was until recently, an emergency physician. There are two reflections I have, in closing, that I would like to share. Working in the emergency room, of course, can be very busy, as many will know from either receiving or perhaps providing or supporting the care. People can be mildly sick, critically ill or just worried. Our job is to tell the difference and to make a decision that could affect the rest of that patient's life. Sometimes, the decision can be made in seconds, sometimes hours, but decisions do need to be made, and sometimes many decisions have to be made each hour. Timely decision-making is critical. Deciding to call a national emergency is similar. Was it necessary? If necessary, was it called too soon or too late? At some point, a decision must be made based on the best evidence available at the time. Similarly, since Ottawa's occupation is over and the blockade has ended, was invoking the act still a necessary decision? I am glad the decision was made. I am glad it was made only after many other efforts were made under normal laws and regulations. Those efforts were not working, certainly not for Ottawa and apparently not for Surrey, and the risk of further blockades has continued to be acutely present. Thankfully, we have public scrutiny and all the checks and balances and time-limited nature to help us ensure the intervention is as minimally intrusive as necessary. Perhaps for the next crisis, we will have better mechanisms in place to avoid having to trigger the Emergencies Act. In a similar future scenario, the precedent will be set, and so will experience with implementation of the act, thresholds and interventions that could render another invocation unnecessary. The second reflection I have is that in the emergency room, every now and then there could be a violent incident in the department, one where prevention may not have worked and where attempts at de-escalation are clearly overwhelmed. In such cases, we would call on the RCMP, and on such occasions I would never be so glad as to see our friends in uniform. I felt a little the same way yesterday, after the previous three weeks, some of which I have spent in Ottawa. I felt grateful and proud of the professional way in which our combined police forces from all around the country, empowered and reinforced under the Emergencies Act, were able to de-escalate and end the occupation without significant violence. I want to thank all those brave men and women who helped resolve this crisis. I know that many have expressed concern about the way policing failed in the initial weeks of this occupation, and how the response to this particular, mostly white-person, siege differed from police responses to recent indigenous and racialized protests. I want members to know that I share those concerns, and other concerns about how this crisis was initially handled and perhaps even enabled by local police. However, I also appreciate the professionalism and the successful end to this siege without violence, a testament, again, to the ability to act with sufficient numbers and coordination made possible under the provisions of the Emergencies Act. I also want to thank all of our essential workers: our truckers, who have hauled goods all over the continent throughout this pandemic; our health care workers in both public health and health care who, even while I see another light in the tunnel, are preparing for whatever lies ahead; and indeed, all citizens who have stepped up and contributed to our collective journey through this pandemic. I thank them all. I look forward to working with all members in this House in standing up for peace, order and good government. We have more than enough ahead of us to accomplish together.

1092 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Feb/20/22 7:43:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a number of earlier speakers made the point that the measures under the Emergencies Act are temporary in nature, yet the Minister of Finance just the other day said that some of the provisions dealing with financial services organizations, banks, credit unions and perhaps crowdfunding platforms will become permanent. I wonder if the member has a comment about that.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:44:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite from my neighbouring province for the question. Again, I will come back to the limitations set around this act. It is temporary in nature, limited in scope and under a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny, including this debate, the setting up of a parliamentary committee and a sunset provision. I think there are many checks and balances embedded in this act.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/20/22 7:44:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague from Yukon say that the occupation of Ottawa was over. Indeed, we saw excellent work on the part of the police on the weekend. However, if the occupation is over, what is the point of invoking the Emergencies Act? I would also add that, if the government still thinks it needs to be invoked when a crisis like this one is on the verge of being over, I hope that the country will never go to war under a government like this one.

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:45:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the situation is under control for the moment, and the use of the Emergencies Act is only temporary. We are waiting to see what happens next in order to determine when it will no longer be necessary. It is certainly not up to me to decide when it will no longer be necessary or how long it will remain in effect. However, I can say with confidence that invoking it provided all of the means and tools needed to act.

82 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

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

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:47:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to have a question from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for whom I have a great admiration. I am confident in all that I have learned and all that I have read and discussed, and in looking through the steps that were taken, that this was the right move at the right time. I harken back to what I said, that there was a ticking clock. One could wait and one could have many other options on the table that would all have taken time. Timeliness was part of the decision-making here. It was appropriate and appropriately scaled, and it followed the appropriate steps. I do believe it was the only recourse at this time.

126 words

All Topics

Ms. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 7:48:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am also thankful that the appropriate measures are being taken to ensure safety and security. Before, we were hearing about limited police enforcement capabilities, and now we are hearing from law enforcement that these additional supports are helping to bring this matter to a peaceful end. Does the hon. member agree that the Emergencies Act is helping bring this unlawful protest to an end?

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:49:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her dedication to many issues and concerns that we share in common. I do believe, again, referring back to the fact that this will be scaled, focused and responsive, that the act was appropriate. I believe it was effective in bringing an end to the blockade, and it should be effective in maintaining order until such a time as, under expert advice, it is no longer deemed necessary.

75 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/20/22 7:50:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention today. He spoke about knowing when it would be appropriate for the powers that are part of the Emergencies Act to stop. How will he know that? How will the Liberal Party give information to parliamentarians that it is in fact time for us to end the Emergencies Act powers?

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:50:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her dedication. Certainly, if I think of my previous role, decisions depended on input from a variety of experts and from discussion with colleagues, as well as security assessments and briefings from intelligence officials. I would expect the same types of considerations to be put to cabinet to allow a determination of when that would no longer be necessary. It is important to reflect that the degree of oversight, including the striking of a committee, would allow for transparency in the decision-making process that would allow us, hopefully as soon as possible, to be able to cease the invocation of this act.

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Feb/20/22 7:52:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the problems I had with the member's speech is that he seemed to assume that the implications we are dealing with in respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its relationship to the Emergencies Act have somehow already been tested. I would encourage the hon. member to look at the Debates from April 1988, when MP Blackburn, a former NDP member from Brant, stated that Japanese Canadians who had been interned under the War Measures Act were very concerned that the Emergencies Act would not actually protect charter rights. To this day, there has been no reference to the Supreme Court on the application of the Emergencies Act. To have it on record, is the member okay with that? Second, I would hope that the member agrees that—

136 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 7:53:00 p.m.
Watch

We are running out of time, so I will let the member respond to the first question, and if there is another question it can go to a different member. The hon. member for Yukon with a brief answer.

39 words

Yukon

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:53:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say that the courts will rule on the threshold issue and on the constitutionality of the act, including any intrusion on provincial jurisdiction, so I think there is accountability written into this act through all the mechanisms I have mentioned. There will be a public inquiry. There are many opportunities to review the implementation of this act.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

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

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:03:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must profoundly disagree with many of the premises of my colleague from Edmonton West's statement. I want to probe into one issue that has come forth, which is the financing of these protests. One report says that 1,100 of the donors to this protest were also donors to the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. Of course, there has been a lot written about them and the motivations there. We also see the protesters here with very hateful flags and symbols, reports of shelters being overtaken, and so on. Can my colleague opposite talk about the funding and, if he is worried about the impact of the funding on Canada's political system, what kind of impact—

122 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 8:04:51 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

6 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:04:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get a question from my colleague. I appreciate the comment, and I do not want to be mean back, but I appreciate what he is saying. I am kind of stunned though. The U.S. treasury, its version of our Treasury Board, did an investigation on Tides. It found that money from Russia was being funnelled into Tides in the U.S.A. and that money was getting funnelled into Canada. We knew about this. The government knew about that, yet did nothing. There were millions of dollars funnelled in through other environmental groups to fight development in Alberta, probably the Coastal GasLink protest. Why are those okay, but bouncy castle donations are not?

121 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35