SoVote

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Feb/20/22 9:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I rise today. This is a solemn day that will no doubt be remembered by Canadians for decades to come. Given the gravity of today's debate, I believe it is incumbent on all members to speak candidly, earnestly and sincerely. Today we are debating the Emergencies Act, but before I outline why the invocation of this act is capricious and completely unnecessary, it is best to provide some context to how our country got to where it is right now. Unfortunately, it is truly clear that Canada is a highly fragmented country facing significant economic problems that put our entire prosperity at risk. Our economy has just experienced significant job losses. We are experiencing an inflation crisis, with inflation at a 30-year high of 5.1%. That has real consequences. There are people, many Canadians, who cannot afford the bare necessities of life. We have over $1 trillion in debt that will doubtlessly be pushed onto future generations as they pay for our expenditures. Our country is divided. It is divided between west versus east, rural versus urban, freedom versus security and vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Now our Prime Minister has invoked the Emergencies Act. It is an act that suspends the civil liberties of Canadians such as section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of association, and section 8, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The police can, literally without warrant or warning, seize one's property. They can arrest Canadians for simply assembling. Never in my life or in my wildest dreams did I ever expect to have five police checks just to get to my office. Never did I expect that in Canada. The invocation of the Emergencies Act has also given the government the right to freeze bank accounts without judicial oversight. This can create financial ruin by putting an asterisk beside someone's financial credit rating for life. This might mean that a mortgage never happens, or that a son or daughter never goes to university, because of this asterisk. Why was this done? According to the Minister of Justice, when he was talking to the media, he said that the grounds could be for as little as supporting causes the government disagrees with. This is shameful. When someone's bank account is frozen, they are effectively being removed from society. They may not have money to pay for food to feed their children, for gasoline for their cars to get to work, or for electricity to heat their homes. The government may literally starve and freeze Canadians into submission. I watched this weekend as protesters were arrested at gunpoint. They were pepper sprayed. Several protesters were trampled by 2,000-pound horses. How could the Prime Minister ever let the situation get this bad? This is not our Canada. Let us go back and look at what led us to these circumstances. It makes sense to start with the change in tone from the Prime Minister heading into his unnecessary $600-million election. The Prime Minister, based no doubt on polling numbers, made a calculated effort to demonize unvaccinated Canadians and to capitalize on the growing frustration of vaccinated Canadians with the unvaccinated. The choice led the Prime Minister to demean and stigmatize, as the member for Louis-Hébert so eloquently said. The Prime Minister said they are extremists “who do not believe in science, they’re often misogynists and often racists. It is a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a decision in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?” That is repugnant. I have sat here listening to Liberal member after Liberal member saying that we needed to de-escalate and bring down the heat. They should start by talking to the Prime Minister. Also, it was no doubt a part of the Prime Minister's strategy to demonize and exploit cleavages in our society when he decided to implement a 14-day quarantine period on truckers: our heroes who, throughout COVID for two years, when there were no vaccines, went across. They braved the delta variant. They braved the omicron variant. They were our heroes, and now they are demonized. All we have asked, and all the media and the opposition members have asked, is for the government to show us its math. Instead, we get outdated, irrelevant talking points. We have cost thousands of Canadians their livelihoods for purely partisan politics. This is disgusting. We presented the most utterly reasonable motion. Our party simply asked for a plan to end the mandate. It was just a plan. The Prime Minister remained defiant, refusing to support the plan. While the rest of the world opens up borders, while the rest of the world eases restrictions, our Prime Minister will not even give Canadians, who deserve hope, a plan for that hope or a plan to return to normality. Once again, the Prime Minister has chosen politics over science and petulance over leadership. This crisis could have been avoided with strong and compassionate leadership. Instead, the Prime Minister chose partisanship over statesmanship and division over unity. This has led us to the current crisis. The Prime Minister's unnecessary mandate and divisive rhetoric have caused frustrations to boil over. Canadians from across the country began to spontaneously demonstrate and show their dissatisfaction to the Liberal government. Unfortunately, some of the movement splintered into illegal activities, including the blockades at the border crossings at Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge. Fortunately, the provinces were able to resolve these matters peacefully, and they ended with hugs instead of violence. Here in Ottawa, while many of the protesters were salt-of-the-earth Canadians who wanted to express their grievances, unfortunately there were some who expressed hate. They should all be individually accountable for those expressions. In addition, there were approximately 150 vehicles parked in front of Parliament for over three weeks. Those vehicles disrupted lives. They made it impossible for individuals to go to school or to go to work. They needed to be moved, and that cannot be doubted. To end this, though, the Prime Minister overreached. He invoked the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act is fairly clear and fairly prescriptive. It requires that three tests be met: first, that the public disorder created a threat to the security of Canada; second, that it was national in scope; and third, that the public disorder could not be resolved by other means. Let us review those criteria, one by one. Was there a security threat to Canada? A security threat would presumably be something extremely significant. A clear example would be the potential use of a nuclear or chemical weapon. Those are security threats to Canada. Another would be a paramilitary force threatening to overthrow the Canadian government. What we had here were 150 illegally parked vehicles and a mass of disorganized people, some of them who had repugnant views, including the overthrow of the government, but there is no actual intelligence I have seen or any evidence that there was actually the ability to threaten our government. I walked through there for three weeks, and if in fact the government allowed all MPs to walk through these protests and there was an imminent threat to our government, that is the most malfeasance and insecurity our government has ever had. Second, it is national in scope. Three weeks ago, we may have had an argument about this. When the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were happening, we might have had an argument, but they are gone. Do members know what? So is the protest in Ottawa. Why has this not been revoked by now? Where is the threat? Where is it? It is clear. It is done. Third, it cannot be resolved by other legislation. Clearly, it could be and it has been, at the Ambassador Bridge and otherwise. It is true that it would be helpful. A sledgehammer would be helpful to crack a walnut, but it would not be necessary. That is the case here. Ultimately, this is not about truckers or one's vaccination status. This is about the future of Canada. Do we want a country that is free to dissent? A government that controls the discourse, controls our lives. Do we want a country where environmentalists fear that we are not doing enough on climate change? Do we want a country where Quebeckers can share their request for greater autonomy? Do we want a government where a Conservative can share his contempt for the government? I believe all of these voices should be heard.

1459 words

All Topics

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:33:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was an impassioned speech. I have to admit that I am struck by much of what the member said. In the spirit of thinking through some facts, he mentioned that many people were trampled. Mr. Philip Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I did not. I said two. Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed: Mr. Speaker, two people were trampled. News reports say the reporter actually admitted that there was, in fact, no trampling. I just want to make sure we clarify the facts in the House. I would ask the following question. The other side does not trust the government. Would the members trust the national security adviser to Stephen Harper, and the former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden? He said that it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it related to the federal banking measures, which were not covered under other legislation.

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/20/22 9:34:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be kind and generous and just say that the individual misheard. I clearly said two, and if you check the records you will hear that. If you want to watch the video, it is available. Just watch it, because it is on film. There are two individuals, including one lady who has a scooter or walker, who get trampled by a 2,000-pound horse. I have horses. Let me tell you, that is going to hurt a whole lot, and that happened. You can shake your head all you want, but just look at the video. I went through it blow by blow. There is not a national security threat that cannot be resolved by other legislation. It is clear. I do not know how else to say it.

134 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 9:35:28 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the member that when we are answering questions, to put them through the Chair and make sure we are not taking this so personally. I know it is late in the day, and we all have lots to say and lots to comment on and question. The hon. member for Jonquière.

58 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/20/22 9:35:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, my colleague said that the government put political interests, partisanship, ahead of science. He said that by making reference to the motion the Conservatives moved, citing Dr. Theresa Tam. Personally, I have heard many Conservative colleagues say that vaccination is annoying, but the science tells us that we have to get vaccinated. Is my colleague in favour of vaccination? Does he agree that the best way out of this crisis is vaccination? I would like his opinion on that.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/20/22 9:36:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. It must be the end of the day, because I am a little passionate. My apologies to the member if I got a little passionate. I am definitely pro-vaccine. I am proudly vaxxed and I believe everyone should be vaccinated. However, we also need to not demonize people who think differently from us. We live in a free country, and when we demonize people, calling them misogynist and racist, that is not Canadian. That is not our Canada.

84 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/20/22 9:37:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention in the House. I have worked closely with him on the direction and control bill that he brought forward, and I am quite pleased with some of the work he has done in the House. As we look for solutions to the crisis facing Canadians, one of my questions is how we deal with foreign funding or illegal funding of domestic terrorist groups. Would he support urgent legislation being put in place to prevent domestic terrorist groups from being funded?

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/20/22 9:37:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-216

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. I have enjoyed working with her on Bill S-216 and, if I am not being too bold, walking with her to the House earlier. I would say that this is an area of study and it is an area where we need to look at these new technologies. Unfortunately, the government has been behind on many things, including reviewing how cryptocurrency works in this context. We need to look at crowdfunding. We need to review all of these topics.

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Feb/20/22 9:38:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government has cited a public order emergency throughout Canada as its justification to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is wrong. In this chamber, the Prime Minister said he invoked the Emergencies Act because the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada. That is false. The leader of the NDP talks about tools available, should the government abuse the power provided within this act. However, he has missed a critical point, which is that the abuse has already happened. Neither of them is listening to Canadians; they are instead choosing a path of divisive policies, distinctly separate from democracy and the voice of Canadians. Freedom is at the heart of democracy, and the right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Let me say that again: The right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Freedom is what so many hundreds of thousands of Canadian women and men have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend. A Métis man in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia wrote me this week to tell me a story of his father's and his family's commitment to preserving and securing democracy, and his concern about the current government actions. He told me the story of his great-grandfather, who was wounded in the First World War. He holds tightly, as a reminder of how he came to be free, the very bullet that tore through his great-grandfather's leg. He also told me that his grandfather fought in the Canadian First Infantry Division, which made its way through Ortona, Italy to stop Hitler's advances through Europe. These are but two examples of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have sacrificed for our freedoms, the very freedoms the Liberal government has restricted. Why did the Prime Minister go directly to invoking the Emergencies Act? He had numerous opportunities to address the situation peacefully over the past few weeks, yet he chose to do nothing. I can think of four reasonable actions that would have allowed us to avoid the difficulties we have faced. The Prime Minister could have sent a delegation. The Prime Minister could have sent the public safety minister or the emergency preparedness minister. The Prime Minister could have met with opposition leaders, like the Conservative leader requested. Finally, the Prime Minister could have met and listened to these Canadians himself. Of course, the government could have removed COVID restrictions and vaccine passports at our border crossings and airports. However, listening, the one thing that would have helped de-escalate, is the very thing he did not do. Having a significant background in law enforcement, I know that the basic rule of law is to listen to concerns and work towards a peaceful resolution, not to enter into a fight first. I cannot imagine what would happen if every police officer went to a call and did not listen to the issues first. Dialogue is significantly more productive than the Emergencies Act. Instead, what the Prime Minister decided to do was further rachet up, escalate and divide Canadians with hurtful rhetoric. Canadians are not buying divisive rhetoric. The Prime Minister no longer has footing rooted in democracy, and all members of the House have a simple choice to make. Do they side with freedom and the institutions of democracy, or do they side with the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP, who want to seize the bank accounts of Canadians with whom they disagree? Apparently, accounts have already been frozen. This sets a precedent that for all illegal blockades of roads, logging sites, pipelines or railroads, the future funding is subject to this process. Going back to the Emergencies Act, I choose freedom. Let us not be so foolish as to water down the significance of this movement, our obligations to those we serve and the impacts this will have on generations that follow. The decisions we make in this chamber on this issue will reverberate through the walls of history, and we will be held to account. The choice is simple: Protect and defend democracy or tear it down. I will be voting to defend it. We must not accept a situation where it is up to a prime minister or any member of the government to decide, outside the laws created in this chamber, which protests are legal and which are not. We surely must not tolerate a scenario where families are separated because their ideas or beliefs are different from those of the prime minister or the government of the day. Kootenay—Columbians see this as being about a Prime Minister's ego, about a lack of leadership and weakening precedents. I would like to take this moment to speak to those members of the Liberal caucus who are feeling uneasy about being whipped to a vote they know to be wrong. Their country needs them to uphold the values of democracy and freedom. Our country will be strong and free long after we leave this place, and it is our responsibility to ensure it is so. The Emergencies Act was not invoked during fears and protest around the Spanish flu, which took 50 million lives around the world. It was not invoked during the Great Depression and the workers strikes in the 1930s. It was not invoked during the crises of Oka or Ipperwash, or in the aftermath of 9/11. During my time in law enforcement in British Columbia, the act was not invoked to solve the riots in Penticton and Kelowna, where downtown storefronts were destroyed. It was not invoked to address a month-long illegal standoff at Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest in the history of the province. There were RCMP members shot, helicopters taking rifle fire and landowners unable to go home. I was at this event and can say with certainty that it was much like a war zone, in British Columbia, Canada, and there was no Emergencies Act invoked. Currently, there is an illegal blockade and protest at the Coastal GasLink drill site on the Marten Forest Road near Houston, B.C. On February 17, there was an attack on a number of CGL employees and RCMP, and a member was physically injured in the attack. Initial damage to equipment and buildings is estimated at over $10 million. RCMP are investigating mischief, assault, criminal harassment and man traps set purposely to injure police. This appears to be a violent, illegal action that the Emergencies Act would support law enforcement in, especially given that its financial support, from GoFundMe.com, has financing from outside Canada. Where other methods and authorities exist to deal with disagreements, governments should use these methods and authorities. Governments should not subject free people to abuse of wide-ranging, freedom-altering overreach. I stand before members today on behalf of the people I represent and the thousands of phone calls and emails from individuals concerned about their charter rights and freedoms. I stand in this chamber, after a lifetime of experience within the RCMP, to explain to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this House that he is wrong in his actions. Police agencies have the tools they need, but it starts with dialogue. The government had numerous other legislative options it could have considered before going to the extreme of invoking the Emergencies Act. The act makes it clear it is only meant to address urgent and critical situations that cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law in Canada. The government wants the public to believe otherwise, but in fact it does have the power to direct the RCMP under section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The government did nothing for weeks and is now taking unprecedented steps that are not necessary. Regardless of the talking points being used by the government and what it would like Canadians to believe, the fact remains that the Prime Minister's actions represent real limits on our charter rights. Civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic norms are all principles that require constant vigilance to defend. The measures under the Emergencies Act raise serious questions with respect to the rights of Canadians. Section 2 guarantees our freedom of association and assembly. Section 7 guarantees our right to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 8 guarantees our protection against unreasonable search and seizure. How and why can Canadians be assured the government is protecting our rights with this extraordinary and unprecedented invoking of the Emergencies Act? The following organizations have now come out publicly against the Prime Minister's overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to opposition from the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Who wholeheartedly agrees with the Prime Minister and the Liberals? The NDP, that is who. Twenty-five votes in this 338-vote House separate the will of Canadians from democracy. As Canadians learn about the Emergencies Act and the NDP support for it, they are sounding alarm bells. The silent majority is awake. Canadians are watching and will not forget the decision we make in this chamber on this issue. Freedom will prevail on Friday, or it will prevail when the government fails. Make no mistake: Freedom will prevail. However, the current leader of the NDP is supporting the Prime Minister at any cost. We arrive at this unfortunate moment as the direct result of failed leadership by the Prime Minister and his government. I implore all colleagues to take note: Future generations will read and learn about their actions and their support and abuse of power. It will be recorded in history, written in textbooks and taught in classrooms. This wayward principle has lost control long ago. Opposition to the NDP-supported Liberal overreach is growing. Invoking the Emergencies Act is clear government overreach, and the Conservatives will oppose it. I want to add that I really appreciate the thousands of individuals in Kootenay—Columbia who have reached out to me, hoping common sense prevails. It is difficult to understand the federal government when so many provinces have eliminated most COVID restrictions. For example, I was in Calgary and there was no vaccine passport. Therefore, why does the federal government continue with vaccine restrictions at federal-regulated locations, border crossings and airports? We would not be here if the government followed common sense and science as its provincial partners are doing. I hope the government starts to listen. We need Canada united and proud. It is time.

1782 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:48:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of meeting the member yet, but I look forward to meeting him and working with him productively in the House. I thank him for his invitation to vote against the motion confirming the declaration of emergency, but I must assure him that I will be voting in favour of it. I must also remind him that, in fact, two-thirds of Canadians support it, including 75% of Canadians in his own province of British Columbia, 72% of Canadians in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, 65% in Ontario, 57% in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and 51% of Canadians in Alberta. In fact, a majority of Canadians in every province support the invocation. By the way, 82% of Canadians believe that premiers who lifted restrictions lifted them too quickly. That is 82% of Canadians. The member mentioned that one of the actions he wished the Prime Minister would have taken was speaking to the protesters. I remember a press conference in the early days of the protest and it looked like it was a small, confined basement room somewhere. The Conservatives were asking the Prime Minister to speak with this group. Why would the Prime Minister of any country empower illegal occupiers with a conversation? What message would that send to future occupiers?

218 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison

Feb/20/22 9:49:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question really is why the Prime Minister or members of the government did not go talk to the individuals who were here and organizing those events to see what they wanted and what they were going to do, rather than sit in here and do nothing. I said that is an option the Prime Minister had. He also could have sent the public safety minister or the emergency preparedness minister. He could have just opened the dialogue and that is what is missing here. There was no dialogue.

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/20/22 9:50:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be a wet blanket; far from it. I am being a little cheeky now, but I have to say, I find it rather surprising that we actually agree with the Conservative Party on the issue of freedom. I wonder if they will stop there. If I think of conversion therapy, medical assistance in dying, and the right of women to control their bodies, the Conservatives have generally been a little more reserved when it comes to talking about freedom. Does this signify a new beginning for the Conservative Party? Are the New Democrats not becoming more like the Conservatives? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison

Feb/20/22 9:51:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can say it depends, but on a serious note, I have always been that way for rights and freedoms. That is where I have been and, since I have been elected, that is where I will stand.

40 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/20/22 9:51:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues the member did not touch on was the impact of this illegal occupation on the residents. It took a private citizen to bring the matter to court. In fact, it was reported in the media that she was threatened and attacked. Do the members have any comments for the residents who suffered through all of this, who received threats and harassment? What are his comments? Do they not have rights and should their safety not be protected?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison

Feb/20/22 9:52:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is really up to the police to respond to those issues and they could have responded. I believe they have already talked with the government and they responded as they felt appropriate.

35 words

All Topics

Ms. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:52:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the mayor supports the Emergencies Act. The local police force supports the Emergencies Act. Why does my colleague not think this is necessary when peoples lives have been impacted and business supply chains have been impacted? Why does he not think it is important?

46 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison

Feb/20/22 9:53:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I never said it was not important. For example, just before COVID we had the railway blockade where $6 billion was lost for our economy and we did not react to that. When she asks that question, I will say I do care and I think we should be doing something. I do believe we do not need the Emergencies Act to keep our streets safe.

68 words

All Topics

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:53:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Newmarket—Aurora. The right to protest is a fundamental right in this country. It has been used repeatedly in Canada for causes that have helped us grow as a society. Think of women's suffrage, the end of racial segregation, the rights of LGBTQ2+ people, and the process of reconciliation with first nations, Métis and Inuit people. Unfortunately, we are seeing this right to protest being hijacked by far-right populist movements, jeopardizing the common interest of Canadians, the public order, democracy, the parliamentary process and the people who are duly elected to represent Canadians. This is extremely troubling. As the media has reported from the beginning of what has become an occupation of Parliament Hill, symbols of hate and conspiracy theories have been unabashedly displayed by protesters in downtown Ottawa for three weeks. The use of these symbols reminds us that freedom of opinion does not allow people to spread hate under the guise of freedom of expression. The individuals promoting this movement still do not seem to understand that. As we speak, downtown Ottawa has been cleared out, but protesters are relocating to other rally points. The pandemic has been and still is the biggest challenge many Canadians have ever faced. Everyone has experienced different hardships, but the vast majority of us have faced these difficulties with the understanding that following the measures implemented by provincial and federal governments is important. We are all exhausted by this pandemic, which has been dragging on for almost two years. We have all made sacrifices for the good of our families, our friends, our communities and those most in need. The pandemic has triggered mental health challenges for Canadians, in the form of stress, anxiety, excessive consumption behaviours and violence. There is no question that we want to be done with this deplorable virus, but it is tenacious. Last week, the official opposition cited Denmark as an example of a country that had lifted all of its health restrictions. In recent days, this small country has seen the number of COVID‑19 cases skyrocket and the number of deaths increase drastically. This is why it is important to do things properly for all of us, for our health care workers, our economy and our business owners who do not want to see more shutdowns. Furthermore, the fact that ideological opposition to the health measures has been expressed by a vocal minority manipulated by external influences in no way justifies tolerating intimidation. It does not give anyone the right to intimidate Ottawa residents, to scare seniors into staying home and not running errands, to forcefully pull masks off people passing by, and to force restaurant owners to stay closed even longer. This occupation even employed techniques that threatened the public order, like flooding the 911 line with calls, depriving Ottawans of their right to safety. All of this is not to mention the economic consequences and the proof of foreign interference in the orchestration of this illegal protest. I would like to remind all members that the pandemic is unfortunately not over, that the enemy is the virus, and that the best ways to beat it are to get vaccinated, to listen to science and to stand together, as we have done since the beginning, instead of encouraging divisive elements. For two years, our government has provided unprecedented financial assistance, which helped support Canadians, our businesses and our organizations and get them through these difficult times. However, due to the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada, businesses remained closed, people lost their jobs, all sectors were affected and the economic cost has been calculated to be in the millions of dollars. It would be deplorable if the efforts made by the government and the opposition parties to fight the consequences of COVID-19 were to be trampled by a group of protesters wanting to disrupt the democratic process in the House. When I was in university, our professors constantly reminded us that the legislator does not speak in vain. The Emergencies Act, sponsored by a Conservative minister, was passed in order to be used. The fact that it was never invoked for 34 years is a good thing. Canada is a peaceful country. Its people are resilient and united. This act provides for a rigorous implementation process, which includes consultations with the provinces and territories, orders, several hours of debate, a vote and a review by an all-party committee. It is very different than the War Measures Act. It protects the right to protest within well-defined bounds. The decision to invoke it is not taken lightly and is not up to one person. Before the decision was made, calls were made, consultations were held, and there were meetings with the mayor of Ottawa, the Ottawa police, and the premiers of the provinces and territories. Over the past few weeks, we have sensed a movement, the rise of something that does not represent who we are. The Emergencies Act gives tools to those on the ground who are experiencing the situation in real time, dealing up close with viciousness, confrontation and vilification. It allows the government to mobilize essential services, it gives the RCMP the ability to act more quickly to enforce local laws, and it provides more power to stop the flow of money. These measures are targeted and temporary. In fact, the interim Ottawa police chief said that this weekend's operation would not have been possible without the powers of the act. The best example is the tow trucks. When the Ottawa police first requested them, they would not come to tow the parked trucks. With the Emergencies Act in place, they were compelled to comply with the request and join the dismantling operation, for which we are very grateful. We were very patient. Reasonable and proportionate measures have been taken in co-operation with the provinces and territories to clear the occupation and get the economy moving again. We are sending a clear message to protect our democracy, ensure everyone's safety, and restore confidence in our institutions. At 4 p.m. today, the interim Ottawa police chief said that even though the operation over the last few days has been successful, the city has not returned to normal, and the police measures need to be kept in place in order to prevent protesters from returning. We respect the right to protest and the rule of law, but we condemn violence and lawlessness. The protesters held their protest, and we heard them. It is now time for them to leave downtown Ottawa.

1113 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/20/22 10:03:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government may have heard the protesters who came here full of energy, but it did not listen to them. It is important to admit that. I have a question for the member. I held consultations when I worked in the private sector. Usually, when we hold consultations, it is to convince the people being consulted that we are right or to present an argument we want them to take seriously. One of the rules in the Emergencies Act says that the Prime Minister and the government must consult the provinces. If the government consulted the premiers of the 10 provinces, how come seven of them, after being consulted, explicitly said that they did not want the Emergencies Act to be used in our country?

127 words

All Topics

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Feb/20/22 10:04:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking that question in French, and I congratulate him for it. Canada is a big country, and the situations are different from one place to another. The Emergencies Act contains a rigorous implementation process, as I was saying in my speech, including consultations, which took place. Another benefit of the act is that it applies on demand, based on need. Some provinces made the request and wanted the act to be invoked. That is the beauty of it, that it can be used where it is needed.

94 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35